30.06 Sign

[barres]

I understand your logic KBCraig, but where in the law does it state that the entrance has to be posted?

I was thinking this way about a Taco Cabana argument on another board where a compliant 30.06 sign was posted behind the counter. If it was not at the entrance it doesn't count, right? But the Penal Code doesn't say it must be posted at the entrance(s). At least not that I have found.

PC 30.06
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both
English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least
one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public.

Unless you can show me elsewhere in PC30.06 or other sections of Texas law that it states that the sign must be at any/all entrances.

[KBCraig]

I understand your logic KBCraig, but where in the law does it state that the entrance has to be posted?

I was thinking this way about a Taco Cabana argument on another board where a compliant 30.06 sign was posted behind the counter. If it was not at the entrance it doesn't count, right? But the Penal Code doesn't say it must be posted at the entrance(s). At least not that I have found.

PC 30.06
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both
English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least
one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public.

(B)(iii) is the key: "in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

There is no requirement that it be posted at the entrance(s). But since the purpose of a 30.06 notice is to prevent entry by an armed CHL, it makes little sense to have notices anywhere else.

Unless you can show me elsewhere in PC30.06 or other sections of Texas law that it states that the sign must be at any/all entrances.

I've never said that any/all entrances must be posted. I said that someone who enters without passing a 30.06 notice has not received sufficient notice that they may not enter.

Do you believe someone who randomly enters through an unmarked entrance, having not passed by any other conspicuous and clearly visible 30.06 notices, would be guilty of trespass just because all other entrances are conspicuously posted? I'm pretty sure you don't.

I did say that someone who went "entrance shopping" to get around 30.06 notices could probably be convicted.

Kevin

[wrt45]

PC 30.06
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both
English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least
one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public.

Unless you can show me elsewhere in PC30.06 or other sections of Texas law that it states that the sign must be at any/all entrances.

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public.

There is the judgement call......what exactly constitutes "conspicuous" and "clearly visible?"

However, the absence of signage at a public entrance on one side, while the opposite side was posted properly would seem to fail the "conspicuous" and "clearly visible" test. Likewise with the page-sized sign.

[carlson1]

After all, when you go to the hospital, you don't get a bill, you get lots of bills from different businesses. Sometimes I think there must be some folks who just wander the halls picking up charts and sending bills.

They are helping each other with their car payments.

[HankB]

Find a different entrance. I had an operation at a hospital in Austin last year and there was 1 entrance that didn't have a sign at all. Guess what entrance I always took?

notice was still given, you were still trespassing.

"oh but the one entrance..."

sure. good luck with the judge with that.

It could hold if the accused could convince the court that he had never seen or known about the sign. Convincing the court of that might involve lying. Some might have a moral issue with this.

IANAL, but wouldn't the burden of proof be on the prosecution to prove that the accused knew about signs that weren't posted at the entrance he used?

AND that the accused knew that it was the hospital's intent that the policy established by signs posted at one entrance applied to entrances where they weren't posted? Which would involve proving that there had been communication between the hospital policy makers and the accused?

[BamBam]

Would this not validate the case against Taco Cabana or any other entity for improper signage?

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (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;

[txinvestigator]

Would this not validate the case against Taco Cabana or any other entity for improper signage?

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (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;

You left out the rest of it;



(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the
building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and

(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license
issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a
concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

[jimlongley]

After all, when you go to the hospital, you don't get a bill, you get lots of bills from different businesses. Sometimes I think there must be some folks who just wander the halls picking up charts and sending bills.

They are helping each other with their car payments.

Back in the day when I smoked, I was sitting in the smoking area on the surgical floor of the hospital where I had recently had surgery and my surgeon came by, stopped and had a smoke himself and chatted with my wife and me. I got charged for an "in hospital visit."