MT Civil Trespass Bill

I completely disagree with the bill as there is already a fine and punishment for trespassing. I could understand more if they were increasing the penalty.
 
I guess the way I would understand it is if you are charged and convicted of criminal trespass the owner of the property could civilly go after you for the 1500. For example if you are at a bar and refuse to leave when asked by the bar tender and police show up and arrest you for failing to leave when asked you would be guilty and the owner of the bar could go after you civilly. On the other hand if you are hunting or fishing and you are caught on private party and it is proven there was no crime committed there is no way to go after you civilly and that is where most likely you would be written for hunting or fishing without permission which is different than criminal trespass to property and would not have the civil enhancement.
 
MTbowhunter84 said:
Correct I understand that but to be charged with criminal trespass to property you have to show the defendant purposely or knowingly remained on the property. If this can't be proved then there is no charge of criminal trespass. If there is a picture it doesn't mean the individual was purposely trespassing.
Click to expand...
I admit (actually quite enthusiastically) to not being an attorney but if you follow the referenced MCA codes I believe that the picture does provide complete proof. A picture should certainly be part of the proof, but IMO there should be some evidence from an unbiased source such as a peace officer noting tracks or something.

Also, as I read it, this laws does an end-around of the criminal trespass law.
 
RobG said:
Don't you think that in the age of photoshop this is ripe for abuse? It seems like we need corroboration source such as footprints, etc witnessed by a law enforcement agent. Otherwise folks like Kennedy are going to be transferring us fishermen from being below the high mark to above the mark, and we aren't going to have the resources to prove the photo has been shopped. Hunters obviously face the same problem.

Also, a photograph cannot necessarily prove that you entered the property "knowingly," which is a requirement of the first part of the law. How can this be an enforceable law?
Click to expand...

RobG,

from what I understand, in Montana, hunters have to know where they are at all times regardless of the requirement for landowners to post their property (MCA 87-6-415). I think that this $1500 is certainly a slap-in-the-face from the legislature to all those who recreate, including us hunters and fishermen, since the fine goes to the LO. I see this further pitting LOs against the public yet again. I wonder if this is in hope of creating a "fear-buffer" around their fiefdoms.

As to the fear of photo shopping, I'm with you on that for sure. I would like to think the scenario wouldn't happen, but with some of the larger ranches in MT already "wired up" with the latest technology who knows what the next step is? It would only take moving a fisherman a few feet from a non-navigable stream (ie. the Ruby) to then hit them with this. Who knows what this thing looks like if you fought it--bringing in someone who can tell if the image has been altered? Having a picture and not film leads me to think you can bet game cameras all over LO/public borders.
 
1_pointer said:
I sorta, kinda agree with you. Yes, I think you should mark your property, but I don't think that it should have to be a fence. IMO/E, signs or fence posts are more and should be more than sufficient. My land borders public and we just mark it with signs. Haven't had any problems yet, but this piece of public is a long walk from the access point...unless I or my neighbors like you! ;) :D

One thing this law, due to the $$ amount of the penalty, could bring to light is the location of fences on a private/public boundary. IME, they are often NOT on the line. IJust by using the fence as a reference could make you liable for a $1500 surcharge... :confused:
Click to expand...


Depending on the area, I agree that signs can be sufficient. In one of the areas I go, they have signs very frequently which are easy to see, and that works. In other cases, though, it is too thick to possibly see the signs or the signs are placed only on corners of the property or in directions that don't make sense and a fence would be a lot better.

I agree about fences not always being on the exact boundary. I know our fences are not exact, but it is taken to be the understood boundary.

I would also like to think that not all landowners are out there "to get you". Sure there are some that would jump at the opportunity to get some extra cash, but there are a lot that are much more reasonable than that. If I think it is a reasonable mistake or a good reason, I wouldn't automatically be seeking money from them. If I know they just don't care and are trying to trespass and poach, it is a different story. And even then, it would be more about making a point with them than about getting the money. When it comes to taxes, payments for the property, insurance, and costs and time involved with maintaining the property, $1500 doesn't add up to much.
 
FishN4Eyes said:
I guess I can't see how this is an attack on sportsmen.

If it's private, you shouldn't be on it without permission whether it's marked or not and shouldn't we all always know where we are?

I would agree that penalty is pretty severe but as a landowner, my family has had some pretty egregious trespass incidents that I would have been happy to apply some sort of civil penalty.

One guy shot SEVEN elk with a .223 and left them lay. Obviously that is one extreme but I would have been more than happy to slap a civil penalty on his ass.

Looks like the bill could use some tweaking but trespass penalties are fairly minor as it stands now.
Click to expand...
I agree, everyone should know that if it's private you should not be hunting/fishing/trapping on it without permission. It's unfortunate that laws come into being because a few choose to not only violate existing laws, but the social contract in general. Prosecuting for criminal trespass is a crapshoot, at best, and the financial penalty is a pittance. Beating a civil suit is a different ballgame. $1500 is severe but the amount might change behaviors of the few which negatively reflect on law abiding, respectful sportsman.
 
earthwalker said:
I agree, everyone should know that if it's private you should not be hunting/fishing/trapping on it without permission. It's unfortunate that laws come into being because a few choose to not only violate existing laws, but the social contract in general. Prosecuting for criminal trespass is a crapshoot, at best, and the financial penalty is a pittance. Beating a civil suit is a different ballgame. $1500 is severe but the amount might change behaviors of the few which negatively reflect on law abiding, respectful sportsman.
Click to expand...

I don't view the civil penalty as a money making venture for the landowner but an increase on the penalty of the offending individual.

Hell, by the time you spend your time and energy collecting the $ 1500 it's hardly worth the time but I would have some satisfaction in knowing it hit the trespasser in the pocket book.

I can't imagine too many instances where landowners would be looking to make money by using some sort of entrapment or "photo-shopping" to slap a civil penalty on law abiding citizens. Just don't see that happening.
 
Last edited:
Don't overlook the fact that in civil court, the finding is based on preponderance of the evidence. In layman's terms, 51% of the evidence. Criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e 100%.

Under this bill, you could very legitimately walk onto private property that is unfence and unmarked in one area, get a trailcam photo taken of you, and end up in civil court fighting your $1500 trespass fee.
 
Here is what I see coming out of this bill. Person gets caught trespassing, landowner/agent confronts him and demands either a) $1500 trespass fee (or higher) or b) I call the sheriff.

This is a very disconcerting bill. As it stands now, if a person trespasses and is told pay me a trespass fee, it makes it a civil issue and law enforcement will typically decline to enter into the fray. This would tie them together.
 
Something to think about in regard to armed trespass in MT: There have been several cases involving Montana's "Castle Doctrine" laws that have received national attention. "Justifiable defense" merely requires the defender to claim that they were fearful and that they were in a place that they were legally allowed to be.
A landowner confronted with an armed trespasser could, reasonably, make the claim that he/she was in fear and would avoid prosecution.
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/3/45-3-110.htm
 
Last edited:
When they find the first dead landowner in the back 40 every one will ask why. Make the penlty to high and it could happen.
 
As it currently stands . . . Senate Bill 229 passed the Senate and will go onto the House.

Question: Is there a House Committee this Bill will go before? And, if so, which one? I would like to contact the Committee members and my representative.

Thanks.
 
It is SB 299 not 229 and was heard by the Senate Judiciary committee which most likely means it will be heard by the House Judiciary Committee. Here is a link you can use to email the whole committee or individuals:

http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/63rd/legwebmessage.asp

Hope that helps.

It would be different if this bill differentiated between habitual offenders who trespass intentionally and those where it was not premeditated and the person did not have a gps or just got mixed up.
 
ingomar said:
It is SB 299 not 229 and was heard by the Senate Judiciary committee which most likely means it will be heard by the House Judiciary Committee. Here is a link you can use to email the whole committee or individuals:

http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/63rd/legwebmessage.asp

Hope that helps.

It would be different if this bill differentiated between habitual offenders who trespass intentionally and those where it was not premeditated and the person did not have a gps or just got mixed up.
Click to expand...
I agree in spirit, but mistakes/mix ups/ignorance don't constitute a legal defense. A first time offender that has to pony up $1500 will, likely, not become a habitual offender.
If the bill differentiated between trespassers, habitual offenders would claim they'd made a mistake/got lost/gps wasn't accurate etc. Constitutionality would have to be considered as well in regard to equal treatment under the law.
 
If someone sues another person for anything, the courts should decide damages not a statute. Show me another law that does that. This takes things way to far.

RW
 
shoots-straight said:
If someone sues another person for anything, the courts should decide damages not a statute. Show me another law that does that. This takes things way to far.

RW
Click to expand...
As I read the bill, the $1500 would be the minimum civil penalty. A plaintiff could still sue for additional damages which the court could/ or not allow.
I wonder if a party of three trespassers would guarantee a landowner $4500?
SB 299 Text http://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB299
There are a number of MT laws which stipulate a minimum penalty, criminal and civil.
 
Last edited:
What is going on in Montana? Starting to sound like California up there.....almost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NDGuy
ND Private Land No Trespass Bill SB2315
2 3
Replies
57
Views
9K
NDGuy
NDGuy
smarandr
Idaho Bill HO536 - Changing Trespass Law
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
13K
pdq_wizzard
P
K
Yet another trespass bill SB 170
2
Replies
39
Views
8K
Sytes
Sytes
W
Gun Enthusiasts Get Ugly in California
Replies
7
Views
1K
Calif. Hunter
C
B
Montana Outfitters looking out for you
Replies
17
Views
2K
BuzzH
B
Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,675
Messages
2,029,352
Members
36,279
Latest member
TURKEY NUT

Share this page

Back
Top