Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[WapitiBob]

Wyoming Statutes Title 6. Crimes and Offenses § 6-3-303.​

Criminal trespass;  penalties​

(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he enters or remains on or in the land or premises of another person, knowing he is not authorized to do so, or after being notified to depart or to not trespass.  For purposes of this section, notice is given by:
(i) Personal communication to the person by the owner or occupant, or his agent, or by a peace officer;  or
(ii) Posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.
(b) Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), or both.
(c) This section does not supersede W.S. 1-21-1003

 

[JM77]

As to civil trespass... Doesn't the landowner have to show actual damages?

There is a land manager in Natrona County who I see every hunting season in the field. He hates corner cross and always tells me how "the lawyers" tell him they can sue for civil trespass. I always ask him what damages he will show in court. That shuts him up every time!

 

[JLS]

Guess it’s time to see what that stable of well heeled attorneys has. Donation sent.

 

[Fremont15]

Wyoming Statutes Title 6. Crimes and Offenses § 6-3-303.​

Criminal trespass;  penalties​

(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he enters or remains on or in the land or premises of another person, knowing he is not authorized to do so, or after being notified to depart or to not trespass.  For purposes of this section, notice is given by:
(i) Personal communication to the person by the owner or occupant, or his agent, or by a peace officer;  or
(ii) Posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.
(b) Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), or both.
(c) This section does not supersede W.S. 1-21-1003

Thank you for posting that. It is because of the verbage in this statute that these charges will be dismissed prior to trial. A criminal charge must be based on existing law, and their actions clearly do not violate statute. I have written several citations for this charge, but corner crossing doesn’t fit the bill. I wish these gentlemen the best. I love to see sportsmen exercising their rights to legally access public land.

 

[WapitiBob]

Thank you for posting that. It is because of the verbage in this statute that these charges will be dismissed prior to trial. A criminal charge must be based on existing law, and their actions clearly do not violate statute. I have written several citations for this charge, but corner crossing doesn’t fit the bill. I wish these gentlemen the best. I love to see sportsmen exercising their rights to legally access public land.

"(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he enters or remains on or in the land or premises of another person,.."

If I put my hand and arm beyond your front door threshold, did my hand "enter" your house?
I don't believe the verbiage requires physical touching and the decision will hinder upon the interpretation of entering one's premises.

 

[Addicting]

"(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he enters or remains on or in the land or premises of another person,.."

If I put my hand and arm beyond your front door threshold, did my hand "enter" your house?
I don't believe the verbiage requires physical touching and the decision will hinder upon the interpretation of entering one's premises.

Completely different rules for your example. You break the plane your domicile whether the door is open or not is criminal if your not authorized to.

That has absolutely no bearing on corner crossing where no domicile is involved.

 

[JM77]

"(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he enters or remains on or in the land or premises of another person,.."

If I put my hand and arm beyond your front door threshold, did my hand "enter" your house?
I don't believe the verbiage requires physical touching and the decision will hinder upon the interpretation of entering one's premises.

First, there are no "premises" in this case, there is only "land" that they could have entered or remained on. Second, since in literal terms "air" is not in statute, it cannot be considered unless statute defines land to include the air above it, which it does not.

 

[Fremont15]

"(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he enters or remains on or in the land or premises of another person,.."

If I put my hand and arm beyond your front door threshold, did my hand "enter" your house?
I don't believe the verbiage requires physical touching and the decision will hinder upon the interpretation of entering one's premises.

Those are apples to oranges. One has a much greater expectation to privacy in a residence.

 

[BrentD]

I doubt I'll ever hunt the Checkerboard, but I threw some money in. I'd like to see clear rulings on this and hopefully they can be extended to other places. Good work and good luck BHA!

 

[winmag]

Hope this gets sorted out before application season next Spring. Could change my apps by a good bit!

 

[one ate E grain]

Donation Sent.

I'll probably never hunt checkerboard, but private land does lock me out of some nice pieces of public. I'd hope this would eventually lead to all public land being accessible to the public either by a right of way or we can just take 50' of it by eminent domain, enough for a county road..

We've millions of homeless in the US and starter homes at half a million dollars, I have some thoughts on land reform and have had offers to shoot my balls off for my opinion on here.

 

[COEngineer]

I'm almost afraid the charges will be dismissed. Hopefully the landowner is a narcissist who believes he is always in the right regardless of the advice his lawyers give him. Also, yes, this has been brought to the attention of at least Colorado BHA.

 

[TOGIE]

I’m almost afraid this will fire up all the private property interests to get the wyoming legislature fired up to try and clarify statute.

and not in clarified in a good way…

Should that be a legitimate fear? Honest question

But you’d think they would’ve tried that already.

 

[Beignet]

I’m in. Glad to see that BHA stepped up.

 

[BucksnDucks]

Thank you for posting that. It is because of the verbage in this statute that these charges will be dismissed prior to trial. A criminal charge must be based on existing law, and their actions clearly do not violate statute. I have written several citations for this charge, but corner crossing doesn’t fit the bill. I wish these gentlemen the best. I love to see sportsmen exercising their rights to legally access public land

Can you explain a bit further? I was assuming the group was charged for criminal trespass because they had been either told not to cross prior or had been confronted at the time of crossing and told, therefore the existing law is "hunter trespass" or however WY refers to it. Thanks. I hope you're correct and it gets kicked

 

[Elkmagnet]

I’m almost afraid this will fire up all the private property interests to get the wyoming legislature fired up to try and clarify statute.

and not in clarified in a good way…

Should that be a legitimate fear? Honest question

But you’d think they would’ve tried that already.

Idaho would follow that script.

 

[Schism]

Donation sent.

 

[Irrelevant]

Sweet, donation sent!

 

[Marshian]

Thanks for posting and updating about this. Donation sent.

 

[Nebbowhntr]

Man hopefully they can come up with more than $15,000, that isn’t going to get them very far I wouldn’t think. Why hasn’t OnX put their money where their mouth is?