Search found 3 matches

by numist
Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:54 pm
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: our new "Castle Doctrine"
Replies: 37
Views: 26449

Re: our new "Castle Doctrine"


And just so you know, in addition to the criminal trespass charge, they had a very good case of burglary of a motor vehicle. The case law says that any time you are attempting a crime and get caught in the attempt, the actual crime has been committed. Givne the entry with the tools, it is clear they had taken at least one overt act towards the commission of the crime (which would at least be the attempt).

And I am aware of at least one case where the district court found gulity for burglary of a building for crossing the fenceline to steal from the vehicles parked in the lot. It amazed me, but the definition of building is an enclosed structure including used for ornamentation. A fence is a structure and if it goes all the way around, it is an enclosed structure. At least the DA thought of it that way and the judge bought it.
The guy looked into a number of cars but never put his hands on one. He seemed to know what he was doing and what the law was. I'm sure he's had contact with the system before if you know what I mean. Since he didn't actually attempt entry into the vehicles the RO's didn't want to go with criminal instrument for the screwdrivers. I was really shocked when they had to call to get the actual law on criminal trespass and even more shocked to know that the sgt. didn't have a clue either. I've now got a copy of the current PC printed out and waiting in case we run across that situation again.
by numist
Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:44 pm
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: our new "Castle Doctrine"
Replies: 37
Views: 26449

Re: our new "Castle Doctrine"

I got a similar piece of advice from a police officer when I had a garage break-in. She said the judge would let trespassers off unless there were "no trespassing" signs. Needless to say, there are now. Also nails on the top of the wooden fence.

- Jim
I really wish the judges would follow the law and stop making it up as they go along.
BTW, if you have a wooden fence, carpet nail strips tacked up about a half inch down from the top on the inside with 1 3/4" nailgun nails works wonders. The nails stick out a little on the outside but are really not very visible. Of course the business side (inside) is the real 'grabber'. The bad guys trying to climb over will only have to reach up there one time to leave a DNA sample,.. or a finger,.... or part of their hand... :evil2:
by numist
Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:45 pm
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: our new "Castle Doctrine"
Replies: 37
Views: 26449

Re: our new "Castle Doctrine"

seamusTX wrote:You're welcome.

We haven't heard much about this law since it went into effect, except for some police officials complaining that they can't arrest criminals caught with handguns in their vehicles (which is not true). I think some people are going to get in trouble with it, sooner or later.

- Jim
It doesn't surprise me how little some officers keep up with current laws.

A while back I was at work overnight and was privileged to encounter and hold a guy that had climbed over our 6' iron fence that surrounds the property (locked gates and all). He had a nice empty duffle bag and a couple of screwdrivers on him as he was looking into all the cars.
When Dallas police arrived, they scratched their heads then had to call a sgt. who said that they couldn't charge him with trespass unless their were "no trespassing" signs posted.
Unfortunately that is not what the law states. If there is a fence, it carries the same weight as a sign. So does verticle purple marks on trees (don't have those either).
They took the guy for pub. intox just to get him out of here... he didn't appear to be under the influence of anything that I could tell. Needless to say we now have multiple signs all over the property to go with other preventative measures already in place.

Return to “our new "Castle Doctrine"”