Idaho Bill HO536 - Changing Trespass Law

[RobG]

http://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/H0536.pdf

I'm pretty sure h536 removes all language requiring posting of property.

I don't know the prior requirements are, but in the bill there still has to be some indication that would lead a "reasonable" person the land is private, such as cultivated fields, fences, etc. See page 5.

It leaves the criteria open so perhaps that should change to be specific.

 

[TheTone]

The bill seems to be a mess as written; no posting requirements, a fence counts as a private boundary, only have to mark corners, which is it?

roknHS, it sucks you are having the issues you are, but honest question how do you feel this bill will prevent those issues from happening? You already have legal recourse as it is. Are you catching people and having them cited currently? Also if they get near your home you may be able to just shoot them if the new castle doctrine bill goes through...

elkmagnet, does it surprise you that he would support it when he gets a bunch of contributions from farm bureau, other ag interests and private timber companies?

 

[Elkmagnet]

I don't know the prior requirements are, but in the bill there still has to be some indication that would lead a "reasonable" person the land is private, such as cultivated fields, fences, etc. See page 5.

It leaves the criteria open so perhaps that should change to be specific.

You are right.
I would have a lot less of an issue with the bill if they were a lot more specific about what is "reasonable" For instance there are a lot of fences on blm/private checkerboards where currently without marking you are legal to cross. This bill seems to muddy that issue more than clarify it.
I personally have posted many miles of private property in my life and like the current law. I really do believe it keeps the honest people honest. I could care less how high they jack the penalty if the keep the posting requirements because everyone knows where they can/cannot be.

 

[Elkmagnet]

...

elkmagnet, does it surprise you that he would support it when he gets a bunch of contributions from farm bureau, other ag interests and private timber companies?

Supprised? No. How can it be surprising when you look at our legislature as a whole.

I've had a Boyle on my ass for 10 years now it's so bad Im not able to seat it in a chair any longer.

 

[onpoint]

Supprised? No. How can it be surprising when you look at our legislature as a whole.

I've had a Boyle on my ass for 10 years now it's so bad Im not able to seat it in a chair any longer.

Would Boyle be the name of one of your esteemed lawmakers???

 

[Lrhiker]

To me it is the responsibility of the hunter/hiker to know where they are. Marking private land is helpful but ultimately the person needs to research before they wander. I have made the mistake of wandering in an area i was not familiar with in texas one time and it will never happen again. On the land near me there are huge issues with tresspassing and it makes property owners suspicious of anyone near their land

 

[1_pointer]

The bill seems to be a mess as written; no posting requirements, a fence counts as a private boundary, only have to mark corners, which is it?

More than a few fences between public/private are not on the property line. Does this bill make it the property line?

 

[onpoint]

http://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/H0536.pdf

I'm pretty sure h536 removes all language requiring posting of property.

see bolded.....

A person enters or remains upon the real property of another
15 that displays sufficient indications of private ownership to put
16 a reasonable person on notice that his presence is not permitted.
17 The following examples, without limitation, are presumptive proof
18 that real property displays sufficient indications of private
19 ownership to put a reasonable person on notice that his presence is
20 not permitted:
21 1. Property that is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a man22
ner that a reasonable person would recognize as delineating
23 a private property boundary;
24 2. Cultivated land;
25 3. Property that is posted with signs prohibiting trespass
26 or clearly displays bright orange or fluorescent paint at
27 all property corners, fishing streams crossing property
28 lines, roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the land or
29 in a manner that would reasonably be expected to be seen by a
30 person in the area; or
31 4. Property that is reasonably...........

The "reasonable person" is an ambiguous line, but posting of some type is still in the wording - unless I'm missing something else. Admittedly not a legislative scholar....
Also don't have personal dog in this fight, but have observed and got involved in legislative shenanigans just across your eastern border for a long time.

 

[TheTone]

More than a few fences between public/private are not on the property line. Does this bill make it the property line?

It might if you're a "reasonable" person. The bill is full of problems like that IMO. Who is reasonable? In some of the communities where I live a reasonable person might have an eight grade education, is his ability to be a "reasonable" person different than someone in Boise with a masters degree? I haven't seen anything or heard any talk of adjustments for that type of thing; I'm sure the bills sponsor and backers are just fine with issues like that as it allows them more to themselves.

There are reasons the sheriffs association, association of counties, prosecutors and attorney generals office aren't in favor of the bill and its because its poorly written and has lots of issues.

 

[onpoint]

It might if you're a "reasonable" person. The bill is full of problems like that IMO. Who is reasonable? In some of the communities where I live a reasonable person might have an eight grade education, is his ability to be a "reasonable" person different than someone in Boise with a masters degree? I haven't seen anything or heard any talk of adjustments for that type of thing; I'm sure the bills sponsor and backers are just fine with issues like that as it allows them more to themselves.

There are reasons the sheriffs association, association of counties, prosecutors and attorney generals office aren't in favor of the bill and its because its poorly written and has lots of issues.

A common thread with a lot of this type legislation that if passed, falls upon some agency (many and varied) to carry the burden of enforcement. Preparation of the said legislation doesn't include a run past the "victim" agency(s). Post passage, the agency is gifted with the blame for it - by the general populace- as well as the boots on the ground implementation of it. The legislator sticks another feather in his/her hat......

 

[RobG]

see bolded.....

A person enters or remains upon the real property of another
15 that displays sufficient indications of private ownership to put
16 a reasonable person on notice that his presence is not permitted.
17 The following examples, without limitation, are presumptive proof
18 that real property displays sufficient indications of private
19 ownership to put a reasonable person on notice that his presence is
20 not permitted:
21 1. Property that is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a man22
ner that a reasonable person would recognize as delineating
23 a private property boundary;
24 2. Cultivated land;
25 3. Property that is posted with signs prohibiting trespass
26 or clearly displays bright orange or fluorescent paint at
27 all property corners, fishing streams crossing property
28 lines, roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the land or
29 in a manner that would reasonably be expected to be seen by a
30 person in the area; or
31 4. Property that is reasonably...........

The "reasonable person" is an ambiguous line, but posting of some type is still in the wording - unless I'm missing something else. Admittedly not a legislative scholar....
Also don't have personal dog in this fight, but have observed and got involved in legislative shenanigans just across your eastern border for a long time.

The way I read that is that posting is just one of several ways to mark the property line. It just has to be enough that a "reasonable person" would know. Unfortunately, that definition is up to the LEO, and no matter how absurd his personal definition of reasonable is, to prove him wrong you would have to hire a lawyer and probably go to court even if there was precedence.

 

[Elkmagnet]

see bolded.....

A person enters or remains upon the real property of another
15 that displays sufficient indications of private ownership to put
16 a reasonable person on notice that his presence is not permitted.
17 The following examples, without limitation, are presumptive proof
18 that real property displays sufficient indications of private
19 ownership to put a reasonable person on notice that his presence is
20 not permitted:
21 1. Property that is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a man22
ner that a reasonable person would recognize as delineating
23 a private property boundary;
24 2. Cultivated land;
25 3. Property that is posted with signs prohibiting trespass
26 or clearly displays bright orange or fluorescent paint at
27 all property corners, fishing streams crossing property
28 lines, roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the land or
29 in a manner that would reasonably be expected to be seen by a
30 person in the area; or
31 4. Property that is reasonably...........

The "reasonable person" is an ambiguous line, but posting of some type is still in the wording - unless I'm missing something else. Admittedly not a legislative scholar....
Also don't have personal dog in this fight, but have observed and got involved in legislative shenanigans just across your eastern border for a long time.

Yes I have conceded that point I was tired last night when I skimmed the bill. My apologies. However that is only one of the "reasonably" qualifying indicators a few of which are potential issues.

 

[onpoint]

Wording contained in a piece of law. Why, in this particular case, the simple approach - "I think people should know where they are - I'm OK with this" - doesn't cut it.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Not a fan of this legislation for various reasons, however....

1st trespass citation, "meh".
2nd trespass citation, may want to figure out how to learn from your mistakes.
3'rd trespass citation, might be considered too dense to be allowed to own a firearm.....

We do have "some" types of gun control on the books......

It's a white out here - not much going on............................

I think most of us have done enough in our younger years to understand that a law that doesn't allow you to hunt or own a gun in your 40s, 50s and 60s because you trespassed three times in your 20s would be pretty sad.
But that said I could care less if they increase the penalty because I don't plan on getting caught trespassing 3 times in 10 years

 

[onpoint]

....was attempting a poking fun at, as I said, wasn't real busy at the time. That said, point taken.....

 

[Elkmagnet]

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article201103539.html

A bill to overhaul Idaho’s various trespassing laws conflicts with a number of other parts of state code and may violate the U.S. Constitution, according to a new analysis by the Attorney General’s Office.

Lobbyists for the Idaho Sheriff’s Association, Idaho Association of Counties and Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association told the committee last week they had serious concerns about the bill’s wording. Michael Kane, representing the sheriffs and counties, said the bill might be indefensible in court and was possibly unconstitutional. He said it could also have unintended consequences — unintentionally criminalizing actions beyond what its authors intended.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Dub

 

[Elkmagnet]

....was attempting a poking fun at, as I said, wasn't real busy at the time. That said, point taken.....

All work and no play makes Jack a Dull Boy!

 

[TheJason]

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article201103539.html

For starters, I fail to see how the state could press charges without a landowner complaint. With no complaint, it's a victimless crime. Look at how hard it is to prosecute DV assaults where the victim decides he/she doesn't want to press charges. It CAN be done, but it is exceedingly difficult. I fail to see why a state would have ANY interest in prosecuting trespass cases absent a complaint from a landowner. The only way I could see this being beneficial to the state is if they are in an access contract with the landowner and can legally act as a representative of the landowner (no permission slip = a ticket).

As an aside, I am in firm support of strong trespass laws. However, I fail to see how reducing the level of notice to the public is a good thing, and seriously doubt it will help alleviate issues such as described by RoknHS. I would much rather see penalty escalators put in place that could go into affect IF certain posting requirements were met, to include painting a tree or a fence post orange.

Also, I question how much value there is in the felony clause. I don't have anything other than anecdotal data, but has a felony DUI clause ever stopped a guy from repeatedly getting behind the wheel of a car?

I firmly believe the best way to reduce trespass is engage the hunting community. I personally know of one ranch in Montana that battled a chronic trespass issue. Their approach was:

1) Very visibly posts all boundaries, including parcels of state land
2) Help, not hinder those who are legally hunting on state land
3) Allow a limited amount of free public hunting
4) Enroll several small, but high value portions of the ranch into Block Management

While this has not eliminated their trespass issues (nothing ever will completely do so), they have greatly diminished because other hunters who are using either the BMA, state land, or main portions of the ranch have a vested interest in preventing trespass. Think neighborhood watch group. If their is acrimonious tension between the landowner and the public, WTF is going to help them by calling in trespassers? I'm not.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I was on IDF&G to check for the spring draw results and came across this statement regarding 536
https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/fish-a...t-support-house-bill-536-revise-trespass-laws