Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Purple markings for no trespassing SF288

I'm with Rjack. I've been told second hand that they have to be notified and have heard of nightmare cases where people claim to have not seen the signs or actually ripping signs down to claim lands weren't posted. If purple paint makes it harder for those scum bags then I'm all for it until that law changes
 
I successfully pressed trespassing charges years ago, first time I caught them in the farm and charges stuck. Did they rewrite the law? I had minimal no trespassing signs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Do I need a sign to not come into your house? Private is private. Same with drones carrying cameras.
 
JNRBRONC said:
I successfully pressed trespassing charges years ago, first time I caught them in the farm and charges stuck. Did they rewrite the law? I had minimal no trespassing signs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Did you catch them hunting, trapping or fishing? Then it is considered trespassing without needing to notify. That is in part 1.

(1) Entering upon or in property without the express permission of the owner, lessee,
or person in lawful possession with the intent to commit a public offense, to use, remove
therefrom, alter, damage, harass, or place thereon or therein anything animate or inanimate,
or to hunt, fish or trap on or in the property, including the act of taking or attempting to take
a deer, other than a farm deer as defined in section 170.1 or preserve whitetail as defined in
section 484C.1, which is on or in the property by a person who is outside the property. This
subparagraph does not prohibit the unarmed pursuit of game or fur-bearing animals by a
person who lawfully injured or killed the game or fur-bearing animal which comes to rest on
or escapes to the property of another.
 
Last edited:
They were hunting. I don’t see the reasoning behind what they are doing, trespassing is trespassing IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rjack said:
I disagree. Here is the text of the most current code I could find (Decide 2018):

(2) Entering or remaining upon or in property without justification after being notified or requested to abstain from entering or to remove or vacate there from by the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession, or the agent or employee of the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession, or by any peace officer, magistrate, or public employee whose duty it is to supervise the use or maintenance of the property. A person has been notified to abstain from entering or remaining upon or in property within the meaning of this subparagraph (2) if any of the following is applicable:
(a) The person has been notified to abstain from entering or remaining upon or in property personally, either orally or in writing, including by a valid court order under chapter 236.
(b) A printed or written notice forbidding such entry has been conspicuously posted or exhibited at the main entrance to the property or the forbidden part of the property.

Now, I would never do it, but this seems clear I can enter ANY private property that I have not been told to stay out of and it can't be prosecuted as tresspassing. That notification can be in person or via sign (or purple paint if this passed).

I agree that law needs changed, but until it is, I will support cheaper and easier ways to provide notification.
Click to expand...
Does (a) "in writing" not mean a no trespassing sign? So sign is up, they are caught on property for the 1st time... idk

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Yes, a sign is notification. I updated my example to indicate verbal or sign.
 
Last edited:
Did not get a subcommittee hearing in the House, this bill should be dead for the year. This will be at least the 3rd time this bill has been introduced and passed in the Senate but has not made it through the House.

Edit to add: This Senator needs to learn that no means no.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom