MT Civil Trespass Bill

[sweetnectar]

I doubt there are all these devious land owners that would break the law to falsely accuse people of trespass. It sounds paranoid. Besides, the lawyer the land owner hires is the one that will make the money, not the landowner. Lawyers aren't cheep. Seems there just isn't that much incentive for a landowner to go crazy-lawbreaker-liar-photoshopper for something like this.

I had to laugh when someone suggested a landowner will be taking down signs and putting them up in order to make an illegal buck. Weird.

 

[earthwalker]

I doubt there are all these devious land owners that would break the law to falsely accuse people of trespass. It sounds paranoid. Besides, the lawyer the land owner hires is the one that will make the money, not the landowner. Lawyers aren't cheep. Seems there just isn't that much incentive for a landowner to go crazy-lawbreaker-liar-photoshopper for something like this.

I had to laugh when someone suggested a landowner will be taking down signs and putting them up in order to make an illegal buck. Weird.

You don't really need an attorney to file a civil complaint. It's kind of a DIY thing. The cut off for a small claims case is $5,000. You'd have to pay for the Sheriff's Dept. to serve the complaint and pay a filing fee to the court. These costs would be included in the judgement upon a successful suit.
The legal forms are available to the MT public on line and through the county or city courts.

 

[sweetnectar]

Ok so say your down to the DIY landowner that is a criminal and falsely entraps someone...does he need one trip to the sheriffs department, one trip to the court to file the case, one trip to the court for the trial, and then one more trip to the courthouse to pick up his ill gotten gains given he can pull it off in court? It all still sounds paranoid.

Besides if I was falsely accused, or entrapped, I would be tempted to return the favor ten fold if you get where I'm heading with the idea. The DIY landowner thats into breaking the law to falsely make a buck by entraping an unsuspecting tresspasser would have way more to loose.

 

[earthwalker]

Ok so say your down to the DIY landowner that is a criminal and falsely entraps someone...does he need one trip to the sheriffs department, one trip to the court to file the case, one trip to the court for the trial, and then one more trip to the courthouse to pick up his ill gotten gains given he can pull it off in court? It all still sounds paranoid.

Besides if I was falsely accused, or entrapped, I would be tempted to return the favor ten fold if you get where I'm heading with the idea. The DIY landowner thats into breaking the law to falsely make a buck by entraping an unsuspecting tresspasser would have way more to loose.

How would a landowner falsely entrap an individual hunting/fishing/trapping on private property? The law is clear that permission is required to hunt/fish/trap on private property, posted or not.
I'm sure that the individual trips to the sheriff's dept, the courthouse, and, eventually, to the bank could including stocking up on supplies, getting a few groceries, and maybe even buying the kids some ice cream- fun for the whole family and a lesson in civics for the youngsters to boot. A guy could also check with the county to see if his subsidy check had arrived yet.
-Not real sure where your heading with returning "the favor tenfold"- more trespassing, criminal property damage, assault, etc.? -wouldn't make for good landowner/sportsman relations.

 

[shoots-straight]

If it's such a loosing proposition, then why the bill?

 

[TBass]

My senator already voted yes and I'm sure my representative will too. If the Governor doesn't veto this when it passes, I'm considering letting my senator and representative know they are not welcome on my property. When they come around in a year and a half campaigning for re-election, I'll have my camera ready for prima facie evidence...

 

[earthwalker]

If it's such a loosing proposition, then why the bill?

Ingomar mentioned differentiating between habitual offenders and errors/mistakes, I think he touched on the heart of the bill.
Some guy whose image is captured by a game camera who is unknown to the landowner would be very difficult to sue. You can't sue an image without a name or address. Even if there was an image of a vehicle/license plate, the landowner would have difficulty proving a case without the help of law enforcement.
In a case where the landowner/community recognized the trespassers image, the landowner would probably prevail. I really think the bill is directed at habitual trespassers/scoflaws.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Bud Cahill is smiling now. Some landowners deserve a heavy buttstroke right to the skull.

A law like this will result in more assault charges than trespass citations.

Bills like the ones going through this year and certainly enough to smash a wedge between resident sportsmen, landowners, and outfitters. Pick a side. I have.

 

[earthwalker]

Bud Cahill is smiling now. Some landowners deserve a heavy buttstroke right to the skull.

A law like this will result in more assault charges than trespass citations.

Bills like the ones going through this year and certainly enough to smash a wedge between resident sportsmen, landowners, and outfitters. Pick a side. I have.

I assume that you've chosen to be on the side of the buttstrokers.

 

[JLS]

The law is clear that permission is required to hunt/fish/trap on private property, posted or not.
.

It is an important distinction that this only pertains to criminal trespass, and NOT the hunting w/o permission statute. Criminal trespass laws require that the land is posted at all access points, and at locations in between.

 

[sweetnectar]

So a guy kicks his way into a store in the middle of the night. With this bill it now means that the store owner can sue him civilly and recover his insurance deductible for the busted down door or does the store owner need a no trespass sign first?

 

[JLS]

So a guy kicks his way into a store in the middle of the night. With this bill it now means that the store owner can sue him civilly and recover his insurance deductible for the busted down door or does the store owner need a no trespass sign first?

No, the store does not have to be posted because it's a building (or premise in statute).

45-6-201. Definition of enter or remain unlawfully. (1) A person enters or remains unlawfully in or upon any vehicle, occupied structure, or premises when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so. Privilege to enter or remain upon land is extended either by the explicit permission of the landowner or other authorized person or by the failure of the landowner or other authorized person to post notice denying entry onto private land. The privilege may be revoked at any time by personal communication of notice by the landowner or other authorized person to the entering person.
(2) To provide for effective posting of private land through which the public has no right-of-way, the notice provided for in subsection (1) must satisfy the following requirements:
(a) notice must be placed on a post, structure, or natural object by marking it with written notice or with not less than 50 square inches of fluorescent orange paint, except that when metal fenceposts are used, the entire post must be painted; and
(b) the notice described in subsection (2)(a) must be placed at each outer gate and normal point of access to the property, including both sides of a water body crossing the property wherever the water body intersects an outer boundary line.
(3) To provide for effective posting of private land through which or along which the public has an unfenced right-of-way by means of a public road, a landowner shall:
(a) place a conspicuous sign no closer than 30 feet of the centerline of the roadway where it enters the private land, stating words substantially similar to "PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING OFF ROAD NEXT ___ MILES"; or
(b) place notice, as described in subsection (2)(a), no closer than 30 feet of the centerline of the roadway at regular intervals of not less than one-fourth mile along the roadway where it borders unfenced private land, except that orange markings may not be placed on posts where the public roadway enters the private land.
(4) If property has been posted in substantial compliance with subsection (2) or (3), it is considered closed to public access unless explicit permission to enter is given by the landowner or the landowner's authorized agent.
(5) The department of fish, wildlife, and parks shall attempt to educate and inform all persons holding hunting, fishing, or trapping licenses or permits by including on any publication concerning the licenses or permits, in condensed form, the provisions of this section concerning entry on private land. The department shall use public media, as well as its own publications, in attempting to educate and inform other recreational users of the provisions of this section. In the interests of providing the public with clear information regarding the public nature of certain unfenced rural rights-of-way, the department may develop and distribute posting signs that satisfy the requirements of subsection (3).
(6) For purposes of this section, "land" means land as defined in 70-15-102.
(7) Civil liability may not be imposed upon the owner or occupier of premises by reason of any privilege created by this section.

 

[MTELKHUNTER]

If hunting season is open the land owner with the trail camera takes a photo he's breaking the law.

 

[earthwalker]

If hunting season is open the land owner with the trail camera takes a photo he's breaking the law.

If that was the case, your avatar would be incriminating evidence.

 

[TBass]

If hunting season is open the land owner with the trail camera takes a photo he's breaking the law.

Not if the purpose of the camera is security rather than taking pictures of game animals.

 

[sweetnectar]

Thanks JLS. Seems like this bill will be used way more for other trespass (burglaries) and will have little to do with hunting and fishing relatively speaking.

 

[FishN4Eyes]

Bud Cahill is smiling now. Some landowners deserve a heavy buttstroke right to the skull.

A law like this will result in more assault charges than trespass citations.

Bills like the ones going through this year and certainly enough to smash a wedge between resident sportsmen, landowners, and outfitters. Pick a side. I have.

I can't understand how/why landowners are being portrayed as the Evil Empire.

Sure, there are some azz-whipe landowners just as there are plenty of azz-hat sportsmen.

There are also a TON of landowners that are homegrown Montanans who are very dedicated sportsmen and I include myself in that group.

Hell, I hunt private, public, anything and anywhere I can hunt hunt I do it.

To view this bill as landowners against sportsmen is not what it is about.

It's landowners against trespassers and law abiding sportsmen shouldn't be worried about it.

I'm also not saying I fully support the bill but to view it as a revenue stream for landowners is ludicrous.

The typical trespass fine is a joke and not much of a detriment to offenders.

 

[shoots-straight]

I can't understand how/why landowners are being portrayed as the Evil Empire.

Sure, there are some azz-whipe landowners just as there are plenty of azz-hat sportsmen.

There are also a TON of landowners that are homegrown Montanans who are very dedicated sportsmen and I include myself in that group.

Hell, I hunt private, public, anything and anywhere I can hunt hunt I do it.

To view this bill as landowners against sportsmen is not what it is about.

It's landowners against trespassers and law abiding sportsmen shouldn't be worried about it.

I'm also not saying I fully support the bill but to view it as a revenue stream for landowners is ludicrous.

The typical trespass fine is a joke and not much of a detriment to offenders.

There's a bill in the legislature right now that increases the statutory fines that trespassers pay. It was a min of $500 for 1st time offenders but that got modified to $135, and second offense of $500.

Why the second bill?

 

[JMG]

Would this apply to folks living in the Cities (i.e., Great Falls, Kalispell, Missoula, Bozeman, Billings, etc.) for say someone who walks through your yard when they have been asked repeatedly not too? OR someone's dog who craps in your yard on a regular basis?

It just seems this could be used in a "broader" sense and could result in a lot of "trespass" claims for "civil" reasons.

 

[FishN4Eyes]

There's a bill in the legislature right now that increases the statutory fines that trespassers pay. It was a min of $500 for 1st time offenders but that got modified to $135, and second offense of $500.

Why the second bill?

You got me but $ 135 for first offense is a slap on the wrist.

Again, not saying I'm supporting the bill, I just don't like the broad paint brushing of all landowners as anti-sportsmen.

As I mentioned in a previous post, we've had some really bad trespass incidents resulting in basically wrist-slapping penalties that left a bad taste in my mouth.

We don't own huge tracts of land or anything like that and I fully support and take part in public land hunting as much as I do private, I just hate to see generalizations.

Guess I'm getting a bit off-topic, my bad.

Chris