Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,893 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.volokh.com/2013/09/03/can-police-enter-property-marked-trespassing-signs-take-two/

ntroducing a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence is something else. There is no customary invitation to do that. An invitation to engage in canine forensic investigation assuredly does not inhere in the very act of hanging a knocker. To find a visitor knocking on the door is routine (even if sometimes unwelcome); to spot that same visitor exploring the front path with a metal detector, or marching his bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking permission, would inspire most of us toâ€"well, call the police. The scope of a license â€" express or implied â€" is limited not only to a particular area but also to a specific purpose.

One question that arises from Jardines is whether the police can go up the front door when a homeowner puts up “no trespassing†signs or something similar to indicate that this particular homeowner revokes the implied license. Do the signs revoke the implied license?

In United States v. Denim, 2013 WL 4591469 (E.D.Tenn. August 28, 2013), the district court (adopting the magistrate judge’s R&R) held that “no trespassing signs†do not revoke the implied license and that officers can approach the front door and knock on the door despite the signs:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,484 Posts
That appears to be in line with other case law regarding the "open fields" doctrine that I have posted in the Criminal Trespass related threads, so it is not surprising.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,094 Posts
good

Sounds like a good ruling. I don't want "no trespassing" signs to carry legal weight.
Except maybe to limit the "plain view doctrine."
Absent a SPECIFIC warning and notice on THIS DAY to THESE OFFICERS who approach a house or business that the cops are not welcome and must leave immediately without even getting a chance to explain why they're there or what they want, I think a lot of government agents and some private business interests who are serving existing customers at that property should be able to access the property in a reasonable, non-damaging, non-confrontational manner.

Not cutting locks on gates or tramping through the flower garden. Reasonable.

Cops should be able to climb over your fence and enter your fenced yard (after looking around for dogs-- and with instructions that they CANNOT kill a dog that might rush them) to knock on your front door for any legit law enforcement purpose (maybe to warn you of danger from an escaped fugitive in area? Maybe to ask to use your property to set up a hidden camera aiming at your neighbor's marijuana crops?)

Oil and gas companies should be able to check on those utility pipelines that run through your back yard.

U.S. Census workers should be able to ignore your signs and knock on your door and try to get you to respond to the constitutionally-mandated national census (the big one, every 10 years).

I don't know if that is the law, but it SHOULD be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,893 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Cops should be able to climb over your fence and enter your fenced yard (after looking around for dogs-- and with instructions that they CANNOT kill a dog that might rush them) to knock on your front door for any legit law enforcement purpose (maybe to warn you of danger from an escaped fugitive in area? Maybe to ask to use your property to set up a hidden camera aiming at your neighbor's marijuana crops?)
I would be furious to have some grown man climbing on my gates / fence. Have entirely to much money invested in fencing to have people climbing on it which does do damage.

If the gate is closed stay out. If the gate is closed it is likely live and you will get shocked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,083 Posts
I'm not climbing anyone's locked & fenced in property unless it's exigent circumstances.......period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,542 Posts
Painting purple spots or purple lines on your trees means your land is 'posted' in Texas.
Gives the sheriff authority to take certain actions.

Bet the trespassers never heard of that. Supposed to be more effective than the usual trespass signs but I doubt it. Trees don't complain though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,204 Posts
Painting purple spots or purple lines on your trees means your land is 'posted' in Texas.
Gives the sheriff authority to take certain actions.

Bet the trespassers never heard of that. Supposed to be more effective than the usual trespass signs but I doubt it. Trees don't complain though.
Trespassing signs get expensive when you have several hundred acres to post. They also have a half life of about two weeks in my experience. I've caught a few peckerwoods riding along my property tearing them off posts and trees that they were nailed to. They went to jail for vandalism and some other charges. It's rare to catch them though. Now I make the signs very hard to vandalize by mounting them very securely and out of reach of anyone without a ladder.

The purple paint thing is a great idea. I may suggest that change to the existing law to my rep the next time I see him. Not that it really means a friggin thing in Georgia.

Personally I think that a "No Trespassing" sign should mean exactly that with legal weight behind it. Unless you are serving papers or a warrant stay the hell off my land along with all the other thieves, vandals, and troublemakers. If you get caught violating that you shouldn't get a "warning" and be set free. You should go to jail or be fined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJR914

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,484 Posts
Absent a SPECIFIC warning and notice on THIS DAY to THESE OFFICERS who approach a house or business that the cops are not welcome and must leave immediately without even getting a chance to explain why they're there or what they want . . .
THAT would float like a lead balloon. :rotfl:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,883 Posts
Sounds like a good ruling. I don't want "no trespassing" signs to carry legal weight.
Except maybe to limit the "plain view doctrine."
Absent a SPECIFIC warning and notice on THIS DAY to THESE OFFICERS who approach a house or business that the cops are not welcome and must leave immediately without even getting a chance to explain why they're there or what they want, I think a lot of government agents and some private business interests who are serving existing customers at that property should be able to access the property in a reasonable, non-damaging, non-confrontational manner.

Not cutting locks on gates or tramping through the flower garden. Reasonable.

Cops should be able to climb over your fence and enter your fenced yard (after looking around for dogs-- and with instructions that they CANNOT kill a dog that might rush them) to knock on your front door for any legit law enforcement purpose (maybe to warn you of danger from an escaped fugitive in area? Maybe to ask to use your property to set up a hidden camera aiming at your neighbor's marijuana crops?)

Oil and gas companies should be able to check on those utility pipelines that run through your back yard.

U.S. Census workers should be able to ignore your signs and knock on your door and try to get you to respond to the constitutionally-mandated national census (the big one, every 10 years).

I don't know if that is the law, but it SHOULD be.
What if I put up a sign that said, "Hey you! Yeah, you, Mr. Police Officer. Do NOT step foot on my property, period. Yes, that means today! Right now! Go away!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,204 Posts
Shooting party at Cool Hand's house!
Lease me an excavator for a month and I'll build some bermed shooting bays so we don't drop rounds on the neighbors first. It's amazing how many houses have been built out in the country these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJR914

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,484 Posts
"While probable cause is required for a warrantless arrest, a person may be lawfully seized for purposes of a brief investigation when only a reasonable and articulable suspicion exists."4

In this case, during her telephone call with the narcotics investigator, Willis identified herself as the owner of specific property, related a report about marijuana being grown thereon, and gave her permission for entry onto her property to investigate whether trespassers were so engaged. The investigator also received a report from Willis's son-in-law that such individuals were currently on the property. Within about 30 minutes, the narcotics investigator and his partner arrived on the property and noted "No Trespassers" signs. They came upon an individual who claimed to have alerted Willis's son-in-law about suspicious activities on the property, and that person further alerted them that a black pickup truck with two occupants had recently entered the property. The investigators found a black pickup truck nearby, unoccupied, with two soda cans in a cup holder on the dash, with tools in its bed useful in harvesting marijuana, and with four-wheeler tracks leading from it. Shortly thereafter, they spotted Burgess on Willis's property, riding a four-wheeler toward the black truck. Wright was accompanying him on foot.

78 When the investigators thus corroborated the property owner's report, they gained reasonable and articulable suspicion that the two men they encountered were involved in criminal activity (at least criminal trespass)5 and therefore had the authority to detain them in a brief investigative stop.6 They identified themselves as law enforcement officers and ordered the men to halt.

Burgess v. State, 290 Ga. App. 24, 26-27, 658 S.E.2d 809, 812 (2008)
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJR914

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,484 Posts
Virginia Sue McCrosky appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found her guilty of one count of criminal trespass. The court sentenced McCrosky to six months in jail and six months of probation. McCrosky argues on appeal that the trial court erred in not reducing her sentence and in not declaring a mistrial or continuing the trial because of her medical disability. She also claims the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Because we find no reversible error, we affirm.

The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The jury found McCrosky guilty of criminal trespass by entering on the premises of Emory University after receiving prior notice that such entry was forbidden, a violation of OCGA § 16-7-21(b)(2). The evidence at trial, taken in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, showed that police officers had set up a barricade at the point where Gatewood Road intersects Emory University property in anticipation of protests over the Yerkes Primate Center. On the day in question, the protestors marched on the barricades, with some of the protestors crossing onto university property and some grabbing the barricades and shaking them back and forth. Captain Edge of the Emory University Police testified that he announced over a megaphone that anyone crossing the barricade would be arrested. Edge said he saw McCrosky cross over the line of barricades, after which officers immediately arrested her.

Another Emory police officer testified that he was at the protest and saw McCrosky cross the barricade. This officer also testified that in April 1995, he had given McCrosky a criminal trespass warning informing her that she would be subject to arrest if she did not leave university property immediately and if she ever returned to university property at any time in the future. The officer also testified that "no trespassing" and "private drive" signs were placed in front of the barricade on both sides.

McCrosky testified in her own defense. She admitted to crossing over the barricade but said she believed the road on the other side of the barricade was a public road. She said she believed it to be a public road because the Yerkes Primate Center receives millions of tax dollars every year. She admitted that she intended to cross the police barricade and that she saw the "private drive" and "no trespassing" signs. In light of the above, we hold there was sufficient evidence to convince a rational trier of fact that McCrosky was guilty of criminal trespass beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).​

McCrosky v. State, 234 Ga. App. 321, 321-22, 506 S.E.2d 400, 401-02 (1998)
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJR914

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,484 Posts
In this sense, while giving a person express notice through spoken or written words that his or her entry is prohibited can be sufficiently explicit and reasonable for purposes of OCGA § 16-7-21(b) (2) (see, e.g., Rayburn, supra; McCrosky v. State, 234 Ga. App. 321 (1), 506 S.E.2d 400 (1998) ), that does not mean that spoken and written words are the only means by which reasonable notice could be given to a would-be trespasser that would explicitly notify that person that his or her entry is prohibited. See Munns v. State, 412 S.W.3d 95 (IV) (B) (1) (Tex. App. 2013) (locked door); State v. Merhege, 394 P.3d 955, 959 (N.M. 2017) (Under New Mexico law, fencing around property provided "sufficient notice to the public that there is no consent to enter land."). Indeed, a locked door to a home generally sends a sufficiently explicit message that entry is forbidden to a possible trespasser who encounters that locked door:

The issue here is ... whether [Harper] had notice that [his] entry into [McDaniel's] house was forbidden. The door[ ] to the residence [was] locked. The lock[ ] would be sufficient notice to a [potential] trespasser [such as Harper] that entry was forbidden. The inherent nature of a habitation gives notice that entry is forbidden.​

(Citation omitted.) Munns, supra, 412 S.W.3d at 99-100 (IV) (B) (1). In general, there is nothing subtle about encountering a locked door to a home when one has not been invited into or given permission to enter that locked home. The reasonable notice given and the explicit (but not express) message sent is that the uninvited person who is met by the locked door is forbidden from entering until such time as informed otherwise. It is undisputed in this case that Harper was not *147 given a key to the home or given any sort of permission by McDaniel to enter her residence. See id. at 100 (IV) (B) (1) ("While a locked door would certainly qualify as notice to a naked trespasser [who had no legal rights to the property in question], a locked door is not notice that entry is forbidden to a person who is provided a key by one with apparent authority to authorize his entry into the residence.") (citation omitted; emphasis supplied).1 And McDaniel herself testified that she kept the door locked. See OCGA § 16-7-21 (b) (2) (notice that entry is forbidden must be given by "the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant" of the premises). Accordingly, viewed in the light most favorable to support the verdict, the record reveals that Harper had been given reasonable and sufficiently explicit notice by the owner of the premises under the circumstances here to be made aware that his entry into McDaniel's home was forbidden.2 See id. The evidence was sufficient to show that Harper had received sufficiently explicit notice to support a finding or guilt under OCGA § 16-7-21 (b) (2), and the Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise.

Because notice need only be sufficiently explicit, and need not be express, to inform a would-be trespasser that entry is forbidden for purposes of OCGA § 16-7-21 (b) (2), to the extent that prior cases from the Court of **487 Appeals have held that express notice is required to satisfy the terms of the statute, those cases are disapproved.​

State v. Harper, 303 Ga. 144, 146-47, 810 S.E.2d 484, 486-87 (2018)
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJR914

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,418 Posts
For what it’s worth, there’s no mistaking the crossing between public road and primate center. Lots of really nice trails to run around that area so long as one is cognizant of carry law and what is and isn’t on Emory grounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
My daughter is attending Emory university. While she was on campus before the plandemic, I stopped to ask a Emory security officer on my first visit if I had to disarm while on campus. He was quite for about 5 seconds and said that yes, I should secure my weapon in my vehicle. He was very polite and courteous... I had the feeling that he almost said “ just carry concealed “ but he did not. So when I visit now, I just pop it in the vault and go about my visit.
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,804 Posts
My daughter is attending Emory university. While she was on campus before the plandemic, I stopped to ask a Emory security officer on my first visit if I had to disarm while on campus. He was quite for about 5 seconds and said that yes, I should secure my weapon in my vehicle. He was very polite and courteous... I had the feeling that he almost said " just carry concealed " but he did not. So when I visit now, I just pop it in the vault and go about my visit.
As a private university, Emory is legally off limits for carry.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top