Seems it did meet both, and thus would appear to be at odds with at least one other posters beliefs you must have a locked gate or more to make a charge of trespassing viable.Glockster wrote:And how is it that A 1 AND A2 were not met? It was posted and they were also told to leave.EEllis wrote:You need A and either 1 or 2E.Marquez wrote:So Im not a legal expert, not even as educated as well as I would like to be..
PC 30.05 states in part
(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... OzOGX.dpuf
(a), (1) & (2) in red.. are both of those points of law required to make it trespassing?
or just, 1, the other or both?
Perhaps a DA would not take to court unless the trespasser made an overt entry though a locked gate..and or was told to leave or be in violation. That MIGHT be the reality of it... But the black and white of the law seems to say otherwise.
