TexasCHLforum.com

So Im not a legal expert, not even as educated as well as I would like to be..
PC 30.05 states in part
(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... OzOGX.dpuf

(a), (1) & (2) in red.. are both of those points of law required to make it trespassing?
or just, 1, the other or both?

Did your friend get the names of the individuals or name of company that the alleged bounty hunters worked for? Among other steps, I would take that to my lawyer and have him communicate "the problem" to both the sheriff and the company involved. Even if it does not cause the BH's to pull their horns in, it is another piece of evidence for your friend if these guys come back and trigger a violent episode.

I expect BHs are pretty perseverant, so if they think (however wrongly) their "fugitive" might be at that address, I suspect they will at least keep watch until they find him.

Threatening the dogs is enough to get my dander up, I can tell you that. I'd pull them into the house and put up some cameras for awhile.

I don't know what info he took down. His dogs are his "babies" so God bless them if they harm one.

What's to stop home invaders calling themselves bounty hunters?

Answer: Nothing!

E.Marquez wrote:
What case law are you referring to then?
Not trying to be dense, we are discussion trespassing by a Bounty Hunter (or maybe it's not trespassing??)
You seemed to imply a closed gate and No trespassing signs clearly posted do not meet the law's requirements to charge a person with trespassing and that there is "plentiful Texas case law about this."

So I ask.. What case law supports your position ..so I may read it for myself...
This is not a joke, not a troll, nothing negative..at all.. My apologies if you misunderstood and took it that way.

I'm not spending my time looking it up. Suffice to say if you wouldn't throw a girl scout, and that is an example used in one opinion, in jail for knocking on your door trying to sell you cookies then anyone who knocks on your door for a lawful purpose also gets a pass. That they call themselves bounty hunters makes no real legal difference. (the exception would be if it was considered by a DA that the purpose of the bounty hunters was illegal on it's fact then entering into posted property would be criminal trespass)

E.Marquez wrote:So Im not a legal expert, not even as educated as well as I would like to be..
PC 30.05 states in part
(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... OzOGX.dpuf

(a), (1) & (2) in red.. are both of those points of law required to make it trespassing?
or just, 1, the other or both?

You need A and either 1 or 2

EEllis wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:So Im not a legal expert, not even as educated as well as I would like to be..
PC 30.05 states in part
(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... OzOGX.dpuf

(a), (1) & (2) in red.. are both of those points of law required to make it trespassing?
or just, 1, the other or both?

You need A and either 1 or 2

And how is it that A 1 AND A2 were not met? It was posted and they were also told to leave.

EEllis wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:
What case law are you referring to then?
Not trying to be dense, we are discussion trespassing by a Bounty Hunter (or maybe it's not trespassing??)
You seemed to imply a closed gate and No trespassing signs clearly posted do not meet the law's requirements to charge a person with trespassing and that there is "plentiful Texas case law about this."

So I ask.. What case law supports your position ..so I may read it for myself...
This is not a joke, not a troll, nothing negative..at all.. My apologies if you misunderstood and took it that way.

I'm not spending my time looking it up. Suffice to say if you wouldn't throw a girl scout, and that is an example used in one opinion, in jail for knocking on your door trying to sell you cookies then anyone who knocks on your door for a lawful purpose also gets a pass. That they call themselves bounty hunters makes no real legal difference. (the exception would be if it was considered by a DA that the purpose of the bounty hunters was illegal on it's fact then entering into posted property would be criminal trespass)

So you actually don't know any case law to cite

Ok thats what i figured, but I thought it only considerate to ask and not assume.

Glockster wrote:

EEllis wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:So Im not a legal expert, not even as educated as well as I would like to be..
PC 30.05 states in part
(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... OzOGX.dpuf

(a), (1) & (2) in red.. are both of those points of law required to make it trespassing?
or just, 1, the other or both?

You need A and either 1 or 2

And how is it that A 1 AND A2 were not met? It was posted and they were also told to leave.

Seems it did meet both, and thus would appear to be at odds with at least one other posters beliefs you must have a locked gate or more to make a charge of trespassing viable.

Perhaps a DA would not take to court unless the trespasser made an overt entry though a locked gate..and or was told to leave or be in violation. That MIGHT be the reality of it... But the black and white of the law seems to say otherwise.

Abraham wrote:What's to stop home invaders calling themselves bounty hunters?

Answer: Nothing!

Glockster wrote:
And how is it that A 1 AND A2 were not met? It was posted and they were also told to leave.

For whatever reason regardless if posted it's not considered criminal trespass if someone enters an unlocked gate and takes a normal path to a door to contact the resident. Now as to the asking to leave that wasn't clearly stated in the original post and unless there was some other evidence it would come down to he said he said thus while A 2 may have been met how would it be provable in a court?

E.Marquez wrote:
So you actually don't know any case law to cite

Ok thats what i figured, but I thought it only considerate to ask and not assume.

No I do not have the notations and text of that, or any, precedent memorized and available to quote on demand.

EEllis wrote:

Glockster wrote:
And how is it that A 1 AND A2 were not met? It was posted and they were also told to leave.

For whatever reason regardless if posted it's not considered criminal trespass if someone enters an unlocked gate and takes a normal path to a door to contact the resident. Now as to the asking to leave that wasn't clearly stated in the original post and unless there was some other evidence it would come down to he said he said thus while A 2 may have been met how would it be provable in a court?

come on Ellis, I seriously doubt that the homeowner is just going to stand there while the bounty hunter is violating their personal property and threatening their dogs without at the very least demanding the BH leave.

SewTexas wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Glockster wrote:
And how is it that A 1 AND A2 were not met? It was posted and they were also told to leave.

For whatever reason regardless if posted it's not considered criminal trespass if someone enters an unlocked gate and takes a normal path to a door to contact the resident. Now as to the asking to leave that wasn't clearly stated in the original post and unless there was some other evidence it would come down to he said he said thus while A 2 may have been met how would it be provable in a court?

come on Ellis, I seriously doubt that the homeowner is just going to stand there while the bounty hunter is violating their personal property and threatening their dogs without at the very least demanding the BH leave.

Actually, at least initially, it wouldn't surprise me at all. I would imagine initially he was trying to figure out what the heck was going on. But honestly it doesn't really matter for criminal trespass charges. They may have absolutely committed criminal trespass, but if there is also absolutely no way to ever prove that then the declaration that someone someone trespassed really means nothing. Even if you could prove he told them to leave what is the time allowed for the trespassing parties to leave? The don't have to sprint for the property line but they can't stop and smoke a cig before leaving. So is a little talk back and forth before leaving enough to create a criminal trespass? Well that's kind of a matter of fact for a jury to decide and for the most part not really determinable with the info given. It would be a "best guess" based on situation. I'm not trying to be contrary or anything. It's just that people have the wrong idea about how criminal trespass works here.