Search found 3 matches

by srothstein
Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:14 pm
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: our new "Castle Doctrine"
Replies: 37
Views: 22961

Re: our new "Castle Doctrine"

numist wrote:A while back I was at work overnight and was privileged to encounter and hold a guy that had climbed over our 6' iron fence that surrounds the property (locked gates and all). He had a nice empty duffle bag and a couple of screwdrivers on him as he was looking into all the cars.
When Dallas police arrived, they scratched their heads then had to call a sgt. who said that they couldn't charge him with trespass unless their were "no trespassing" signs posted.
Unfortunately that is not what the law states. If there is a fence, it carries the same weight as a sign. So does verticle purple marks on trees (don't have those either).
They took the guy for pub. intox just to get him out of here... he didn't appear to be under the influence of anything that I could tell. Needless to say we now have multiple signs all over the property to go with other preventative measures already in place.
I hate when officers do not understand the laws and keep up with them. I know for a fact that they were taught the laws and are given an update every two years. OK, the update is not always as promptly as I want it, but TCLEOSE does mandate it.

And just so you know, in addition to the criminal trespass charge, they had a very good case of burglary of a motor vehicle. The case law says that any time you are attempting a crime and get caught in the attempt, the actual crime has been committed. Givne the entry with the tools, it is clear they had taken at least one overt act towards the commission of the crime (which would at least be the attempt).

And I am aware of at least one case where the district court found gulity for burglary of a building for crossing the fenceline to steal from the vehicles parked in the lot. It amazed me, but the definition of building is an enclosed structure including used for ornamentation. A fence is a structure and if it goes all the way around, it is an enclosed structure. At least the DA thought of it that way and the judge bought it.
by srothstein
Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:13 pm
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: our new "Castle Doctrine"
Replies: 37
Views: 22961

HKUSP45C wrote:I guess, now, I'm just curious if a prosecuter has ever charged someone with that statute violation. Ever. Filing a false report aside, of course.
Yes, but it is usually done to the person who lies to help cover up the criminal act of another. As an example, think of me committing a crime, and you know I did it. Jim is the investigating officer and he asks you who did the crime and you lie and accuse Sam. If Jim finds out that you know me and lied to throw him off the track, he will probably file this charge on you.

I have never charged the actual criminal with this. Usually, like Jim says, I would charge him with the actual crime I am investigating instead.
by srothstein
Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:47 am
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: our new "Castle Doctrine"
Replies: 37
Views: 22961

I want to disagree slightly. HB 1815 has nothing to do with traveling and takes this situation out of the traveling exception. If you are traveling (and the jury agrees) none of the restrictions on guns apply to you. You can carry open or concealed,as long as you are traveling.

The new law says that you can have a gun in your car as long as you meet the specified rules (not a gangmember, not doing anything criminal other than a traffic ticket, gun is concealed, and a few other things). The car can be up on blocks in your yard with weeds past the windows, but the gun can be in the car with you legally.

Return to “our new "Castle Doctrine"”