decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
That is an urban legend | 65 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Might check Pennsylvania
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 09:31 PM EDT
My dad had to have the land posted to keep the hunters out, or it was
unenforceable (he tried to have some arrested for trespass, but couldn't because
they had not been warned).

Also a part of "computer trespass" - the trespasser had to be informed
of the rules before the login... And that is still a requirement at the DoD,
where they must have a notice up before/during the login presentation.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That is an urban legend
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 09:23 AM EDT
If that is the case, then I'm very happy to live in a country where laws are
different. Unless told otherwise, it is safe to assume that I can walk through
the forest or other land.
If the road goes there and there is no "closed" or "private
property sign", I can use that road.

You can walk around without being afraid of traps and unexpected fines. It is a
good feeling.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That is an urban legend
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 10:21 AM EDT
I'm not really familiar with all of the trespassing laws, but
i would imagine there is a big difference between a wooded
area at the back of someone's property and someone's front
lawn in a clearly defined residential neighborhood. A hunter
or wanderer can reasonably wander into someone's woods rather
easily without noticing any signs or posts. but if you are
picnicking on my front lawn in a clearly defined residential
community, that would be completely different, and i believe
that is the point of the comparison.

---
IANAL

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That is an urban legend
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 12:41 PM EDT
I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but in Vermont access is allowed "unless notice against trespass is given".

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Minnesota law also states that warning must be given.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 01:21 PM EDT
Quoting what I think is the relevant piece:
(ii) in paragraph (b), clause (9), means the placement of a sign at least 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches in a conspicuous place on the exterior of the building that is under construction, alteration, or repair, or in a conspicuous place within the area being protected. If the area being protected is less than three acres, one additional sign must be conspicuously placed within that area. If the area being protected is three acres but less than ten acres, two additional signs must be conspicuously placed within that area. For each additional full ten acres of area being protected beyond the first ten acres of area, two additional signs must be conspicuously placed within the area being protected. The sign must carry a general notice warning against trespass; and

(iii) in paragraph (b), clause (10), means the placement of signs that:

(A) carry a general notice warning against trespass;

(B) display letters at least two inches high;

(C) state that Minnesota law prohibits trespassing on the property; and

(D) are posted in a conspicuous place and at intervals of 500 feet or less.

Whole statute here.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That is an urban legend
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, March 16 2013 @ 12:41 PM EDT
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK aiui trespass isn't
even an offence as such!

Refusing to leave when lawfully requested is an offense (and putting signs up is
a lawful request (mostly)), or causing wilful damage or hindering the owner in
his rightful enjoyment of his property is the offence. Known, I believe, as
"aggravated trespass".

That was the point of the "right to roam" legislation. It restricted
the ability of a landowner to "lawfully request" someone to leave. But
"hindering the owner in the lawful enjoyment of his property" remains
just as much an offense as ever, which is why you can't wander across crops
etc.

And that woods comment? Well, if the owner is holding a shooting party then you
getting in the way could be fatal... but the law is strict about WHEN such
events can be carried out, so sometimes trespass is perfectly okay, other times
it isn't.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )