TRESPASSING QUESTION

[bogey1]

a friend of mine was stopped for trespassing a couple of weeks ago, he wasn't cited because the cops couldn't get in touch with the land owner. my question is, can he still be cited after the fact? he thinks he will be sent a citation.

[MrBi11]

I think there is more to this story, typically the police don't stop people for trespassing on private land when the land owner hasn't made a complaint. How would they know if he has permission from the land owner to be there or not? there is no reasonable cause for suspicion, IMHO, but IANAL.

[knight0334]

If the lands were posted he could still get a citation if he cant prove he had permission. Signs serve the same purpose as someone verbally saying not to be there and a LEO can act from there on out.

If the lands aren't posted, and the landowners couldn't vouch for your friend, there is PA case law to support "trespassers" who use said lands for sporting purposes in rural areas just in case he is cited. But as MrBi11 explained, usually LEO's dont make such stops unless the landowner, tenant, concerned neighbor, etc has made a complaint. Or unless the lands are posted, or the person is doing something suspicious.

[wis bang]

W/ PA's lax trespassing enforcement, something else was causing the police to take notice. Any other state would be different but here it's so hard to get the LEO to enforce the trespassing laws on open property.

[bogey1]

there are other reasons he was stopped but i didnt want to get into that. i know the cop tried to call the land owner but he didnt answer so he didnt give him a ticket but he said he will probably get one in the mail. that doesnt sound right, i got caught years ago, the cops drove me to the land owners house to see if she wanted to press charges, she didnt so they let me go.

[flanuva]

Sounds like the two of you cant learn to stop trespassing and should get cited.

[sniper]

Sounds like the two of you cant learn to stop trespassing and should get cited.

amen brother,trespassers should be shot,survivers shot again.

[rch105]

Perhaps I missed some of this thread, but there is no requirement in PA for a "No Trespassing" sign to have the owner's name and/or address on it. There are a lot of folks who think you do. All that is required is that the signs be posted in a manner that a reasonable person would see them. I've seen some property owners post almost every tree and pole along the road or property line...that's overkill. In most cases one sign might be placed anywhere from 100' to 100 yds. apart. And yes, there are exceptions, due to terrain. It's best to ask your District Magistrate that will hear the complaint what he or she likes as far as sign placement is concerned.

Also, direct communication by the owner, or his agent (neighbor, friend, other family member, employee, etc), a fence, or other barrier designed to exclude someone can also apply...but signs are best for prosecution.

[marlinmadness]

Perhaps I missed some of this thread, but there is no requirement in PA for a "No Trespassing" sign to have the owner's name and/or address on it. There are a lot of folks who think you do. All that is required is that the signs be posted in a manner that a reasonable person would see them. I've seen some property owners post almost every tree and pole along the road or property line...that's overkill. In most cases one sign might be placed anywhere from 100' to 100 yds. apart. And yes, there are exceptions, due to terrain. It's best to ask your District Magistrate that will hear the complaint what he or she likes as far as sign placement is concerned.

Hi, I'm new here, but can you quote something that supports that?
cause I disagree, and I'm gonna quote this:



Pennsylvania's statute, 18 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 3503 (West 2000), is
based on the Model Penal Code's trespass provision, which does not
specifically mention hunting but requires posting (or fencing or
enclosing) to exclude all trespassers from land (posting is not
required for buildings and occupied structures). See also infra notes
\l "F88"- \l "F89"
\l "B63"

Pennsylvania courts generally hold that posting is required to exclude
hunters. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433
(C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed
open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties
where hunting and outdoor activities are common."). Various secondary
sources provide general insight about whether and when landowners must
post to exclude hunters. The Model Penal Code's criminal trespass
provision, on which Pennsylvania's trespass statute is based, \l "F88"
requires landowners to post nonfenced land [*pg 565] (excluding
buildings and occupied structures) to exclude any would-be trespassers,
including hunters. \l "F89" The Restatement (Second) of Torts states
that,

[i]f. . . it is the custom in wooded or rural areas to permit the
public to go hunting on private land . . . , anyone who goes hunting .
. . may reasonably assume, in the absence of posted notice or other
manifestation to the contrary, that there is the customary consent to
his entry upon private land to hunt or fish." \l "F90"

§ 52 ("A license to hunt does not confer any right on the holder to go
upon lands owned by another, or to enter the enclosure of another,
without his permission. In the case of unenclosed land, however, the
right has sometimes been conferred by immemorial usage or by
constitutional provision." (footnotes omitted)).

CONCLUSION:

Twenty-nine states currently require private landowners to post their
land to exclude hunters, twenty-seven of these states by statute. The
posting statutes were an outgrowth of the American desire to ensure
that hunting was available to everyone, not just the rich and landed.
The statutes vary widely in their particulars, but the core idea behind
them -- that landowners must take often onerous steps to [*pg 585]
ensure that hunters do not enter their land -- exists in all
twenty-seven statutes. Whatever the merits of these statutes when first
formulated, as a result of social changes they now unfairly privilege
hunters over landowners.

TRESPASSING AND POSTING: THE LAWS
Some states have laws that specifically address trespassing while
hunting, and others rely simply on the general trespassing statutes of
the state. In 22 states posting is not required; that is, it is against
the law for hunters to trespass on private property without the
landowner's permission even if the land is not posted. Where posting
is required some states have laws specifying how to post land. But
trespassing and posting laws can be somewhat confusing, so we recommend
that you post your land even if you are not legally required to do so
at a minimum, posting strengthens your case when trying to combat
trespassing by hunters. Posting also identifies your property
boundaries so that hunters and law enforcement officers know where your
private property begins. We also recommend that you get to know the law
enforcement and wildlife officers who would enforce the trespassing
laws in your area so that they might better respond when you have a
problem.

The breakdown of states that do require posting of private property to
exclude hunters/fishermen/trespassers, is as follows-Property Owner
Must Post Land in the following states:

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

I have been told that a trespass violation cannot be enforced in
Pennsylvania, unless a land owner has placed NO TRESPASSING signs at
intervals not to exceed 50 feet around the entire property. The signs
must be signed, dated, and replaced annually. Signs must be placed on
their own standard, not on trees or posts.

The posting statutes were designed to balance the rights of two
different groups: hunters and landowners. For many Americans, hunting
is an almost sacred activity, one enshrined in the national culture.

The posting statutes create an obvious problem: they pit the rights of
one group, hunters, against the rights of another group, landowners.
The rights of both groups are powerful. For hunters, the right to hunt
and trap on all land has its source in the early national egalitarian
desire to allow everyone to hunt.

Municipalities do face one impediment if they decide to take action
against hunters -- preemption. The regulation of firearms (including
ownership restrictions and licensing) is a field that states have
traditionally occupied completely, thus preempting any municipal
ordinances in conflict with state law. \l "F194"

Basically a hunting and fishing license in the state of Pa. is a very
powerful thing. These laws were written so someone like Bill Gates with
his $80 billion is assets, can't buy up all the open land in a specific
state, and close it all to public access and recreation. Without these
posting statutes, we would live in a fiefdom/feudal state, where only
the well monied enjoyed property rights and the outdoors. The bottom
line is, if someone buys up a million acres somewhere, they better be
prepared to post a million acres on a yearly basis, to keep people out.
Otherwise it's considered open to public recreation.

Old, ragged posters nailed to the trees themselves, don't stand up in
court. I'm not advising walking into posted land that may have outdated
posters, or is posted incorrectly- but if lands are not posted at all-
you have the right to access- unless told to leave by the property
owner. In effect, if a property owner only posts one side of a large
square plot of land, the other 3 borderlines are still open to entry.

I'd advise any outdoorsman in the state of Pa. to copy this writeup,
and put a copy in your wallet- in case you are ever stopped while
hunting or fishing. The reality is, most landowners, policemen, and
outdoorsmen don't know the letter of the law.

To anyone who is a property owner, take heed- post your property
according to the letter of the law- and you won't have to patrol your
property and tell trespassers to leave in person. It's a lot easier to
update posters once a year, than to patrol it 24/7/365 days a year.

[GunLawyer001]

Hi, I'm new here, but can you quote something that supports that?
cause I disagree, and I'm gonna quote this:

Pennsylvania's statute, 18 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 3503 (West 2000), is
based on the Model Penal Code's trespass provision, which does not
specifically mention hunting but requires posting (or fencing or
enclosing) to exclude all trespassers from land (posting is not
required for buildings and occupied structures). See also infra notes
. . .
Pennsylvania courts generally hold that posting is required to exclude
hunters. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433
(C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed
open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties
where hunting and outdoor activities are common."). Various secondary
sources provide general insight about whether and when landowners must
post to exclude hunters. The Model Penal Code's criminal trespass
provision, on which Pennsylvania's trespass statute is based, \l "F88"
requires landowners to post nonfenced land [*pg 565] (excluding
buildings and occupied structures) to exclude any would-be trespassers,
including hunters. \l "F89" The Restatement (Second) of Torts states
that,
. . .

I'd advise any outdoorsman in the state of Pa. to copy this writeup,
and put a copy in your wallet- in case you are ever stopped while
hunting or fishing. The reality is, most landowners, policemen, and
outdoorsmen don't know the letter of the law.

To anyone who is a property owner, take heed- post your property
according to the letter of the law- and you won't have to patrol your
property and tell trespassers to leave in person. It's a lot easier to
update posters once a year, than to patrol it 24/7/365 days a year.

I wouldn't cite to any Restatements or Model Codes, when the actual PA statutes are available. If the point was that the "notices" don't require names or addresses, the citations in your post don't refute that at all, and the statute just requires reasonable notice:

§ 3503. Criminal trespass
. . .
(b) Defiant trespasser.--

(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(i) actual communication to the actor;
(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;
(iii) fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders;
(iv) notices posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the person's attention at each entrance of school grounds that visitors are prohibited without authorization from a designated school, center or program official; or
(v) an actual communication to the actor to leave school grounds as communicated by a school, center or program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement officer.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other authorized person. An offense under paragraph (1)(v) constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise it is a summary offense.

(b.1) Simple trespasser.--

(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place for the purpose of:
(i) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant of the premises;
(ii) starting or causing to be started any fire upon the premises; or
(iii) defacing or damaging the premises.
(2) An offense under this subsection constitutes a summary offense.

(b.2) Agricultural trespasser.--

(1) A person commits an offense if knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so he:
(i) enters or remains on any agricultural or other open lands when such lands are posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the person's attention or are fenced or enclosed in a manner manifestly designed to exclude trespassers or to confine domestic animals; or
(ii) enters or remains on any agricultural or other open lands and defies an order not to enter or to leave that has been personally communicated to him by the owner of the lands or other authorized person.
(2) An offense under this subsection shall be graded as follows:
(i) An offense under paragraph (1)(i) constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree and is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than one year and a fine of not less than $250.
(ii) An offense under paragraph (1)(ii) constitutes a misdemeanor of the second degree and is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than two years and a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the phrase "agricultural or other open lands" shall mean any land on which agricultural activity or farming as defined in section 3309 (relating to agricultural vandalism) is conducted or any land populated by forest trees of any size and capable of producing timber or other wood products or any other land in an agricultural security area as defined in the act of June 30, 1981 (P.L. 128, No. 43), [FN1] known as the Agricultural Area Security Law, or any area zoned for agricultural use.

(c) Defenses.--It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) a building or occupied structure involved in an offense under subsection (a) of this section was abandoned;
(2) the premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain.

I would discourage anyone, "outdoorsman" or not (and a lot of "outdoorsmen" these days seem to want to drive right up to where they take a shot, the better to bring the beer cooler, I suppose, and DRIVING across some stranger's property while "hunting" is a pretty assholish thing to do) from re-posting whatever legal opinions they come across. The DJ won't care that you relied on "stuff I read on the Web" when you're cited for trespassing.