You are just totally wrong by law. You have decided that you feel something should be a particular way and even with court decisions that say otherwise you still deny like repeating it makes it so. It doesn't. In Texas you must post or secure gates for entry to automatically considered criminal trespass.VMI77 wrote:More strawmen. Strawman #1: A UPS delivery is essentially by invitation. Strawman #2: the electric company has a lock on my gate, so they essentially have permission to enter. But if I lived in town, this is not the normal practice, so, if I needed to receive a delivery or the electric company needed to read the meter when no one was home, the gate would have to be left unlocked. I put a piece of metal so the latch can't be bumped and accidentally open the gate, but it isn't "locked." If you're not just demolishing strawmen, then I can only conclude you are one of these people who can't conceive of any legitimate reason for other people to conduct their lives any differently than you do.EEllis wrote: They wouldn't consider it trespassing when the UPS driver enters so you can't assume anyone else is trespassing. This is one of those times that reading the statutes will not give you the whole story.
Mind you you may very well be right in the fact that it might be dangerous. You can see just from this thread how misinformed many people are about the law so you may very well be met by someone with a gun, heck ever it would be worse at night, but that really doesn't matter legally speaking if there might be danger involved. Is a bit strange that people would be willing to stop someone at gunpoint but can't be bothered to post or secure a gate. Takes all kinds I guess.
Then laterAt least one Texas court has held that unlatching an ordinary latch on a closed, but unlocked, gate to approach the front door of a house is not an illegal entry by police. See Nored v. State, 875 S.W.2d 392, 396-97 (Tex. App. Dallas 1994, pet. ref d).
True these are cases involving police, but then again how many cases of trespass do you think go to appeals, these only went because of suppression issues. The logic tho is directly applicable. The police didn't make illegal entry because it would of been something a regular citizen would of done.In terms of the degree to which it signifies an intent to exclude the public, a remote control gate is somewhere between a locked gate or sign prohibiting entry and a gate closed with an ordinary latch, and is thus somewhat ambiguous. Although a remote control mechanism on a gate can support an inference that it is intended to prevent the gate from being opened otherwise and to thereby exclude the public, it can also reasonably support an inference that it is merely intended to hold the gate shut, like an ordinary gate latch, while also allowing it to be opened by remote control when convenient. Based on the latter inference, it would not have been an abuse of discretion for the trial court to conclude that the officers pushing the gate open to approach the front door was not an illegal entry.
Mr. Nieminski had the initial burden in this case to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy that included an expectation that citizens would not enter the property through the unlocked gate to knock on his door for the ordinary purposes for which people knock on doors under similar circumstances.
that's right a 6' fence with dogs but unposted and unlocked does not establish an expectation that citizens will not enter the property for ordinary purposes. UPS is ordinary purposes but then so is contacting the owner.
That's right you have no legal basis for your beliefs but maybe if you try harder, act ruder, and insult more that will change.
