Liability as a result of 30.06 posting

[speedsix]

...does Texas have something known as the "greater good" as justification for breaking a law??? Some states do, called by different names...it basically says if you break a law for a good enough reason, it's excused...criminally, I mean...

[sjfcontrol]

Yes -- It's call "Necessity". PC 9.22

Code: Select all

§ 9.22. NECESSITY.  Conduct is justified if:                                
		(1)  the actor reasonably believes the conduct is 
immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
		(2)  the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm 
clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of 
reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law 
proscribing the conduct;  and
		(3)  a legislative purpose to exclude the justification 
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

[speedsix]

...thankyouberrymuch!!!

[Reloader]

Dan Morales, former Texas AG addressed this years ago and stated that it increases a businesses liability.. The link to this is no longer valid and don't know how to retrieve it. If anyone can help, please, your help is appreciated. It was in the first 6 months after approval; Sears, Walmart, etc,. agreed and did not post.

[tbrown]

Dan Morales, former Texas AG addressed this years ago and stated that it increases a businesses liability.. The link to this is no longer valid and don't know how to retrieve it. If anyone can help, please, your help is appreciated. It was in the first 6 months after approval; Sears, Walmart, etc,. agreed and did not post.

You can search opinions on the AG's website. https://www.oag.state.tx.us/googlesearch_opn.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I found DM-363 searching for concealed and liability but that talks about the liability of a business for a CHL's actions and liability for a business who attempts to remove trespasser. Not increased liability for posting signs. Sorry.
https://oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinio ... dm0363.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Liberty]

Remember, the presumption is available for situations arising in your occupied home, business or car, and when trying to prevent specific crimes committed against you or a 3rd person. It is likely that any violation of a penal statute/code would remove the presumption, but not the ability to engage in self-defense.

As for trespass, you aren't going to be a trespasser on your own property (home and business) and trespass statutes don't apply to vehicles. However, since the presumption is available when preventing specific crimes regardless of their location, it would be possible to be a trespasser while preventing one of the listed crimes. For example, if you were to see an aggravated robbery underway on adjoining property that is posted against trespassing, if you go to the person's rescue by entering the property you would be trespassing. Some prosecutors may try to argue the presumption is lost while others would ignore the trespass. If the intended victim was crying for help, then that is implied consent to enter the property, so there would be no trespass.

I know, it sounds like a law school exam answer.

Chas.

Does this mean that we are not breaking the law when we drive onto a 30.06 posted parking lot? or into a plant as long as it stays in the car?

[boba]

trespass statutes don't apply to vehicles.

Does this mean that we are not breaking the law when we drive onto a 30.06 posted parking lot? or into a plant as long as it stays in the car?

I think it means someone isn't trespassing if they get into your vehicle without your consent. Assuming your vehicle isn't on your real property, in which case they would be trespassing regardless if they got into your car.

I don't think it means someone who drives their car up your driveway, past a NO TRESPASSING sign, isn't breaking the law as long as they stay in their car.

IMMA NOT A LAWYER

BUT

[C-dub]

Remember, the presumption is available for situations arising in your occupied home, business or car, and when trying to prevent specific crimes committed against you or a 3rd person. It is likely that any violation of a penal statute/code would remove the presumption, but not the ability to engage in self-defense.

As for trespass, you aren't going to be a trespasser on your own property (home and business) and trespass statutes don't apply to vehicles. However, since the presumption is available when preventing specific crimes regardless of their location, it would be possible to be a trespasser while preventing one of the listed crimes. For example, if you were to see an aggravated robbery underway on adjoining property that is posted against trespassing, if you go to the person's rescue by entering the property you would be trespassing. Some prosecutors may try to argue the presumption is lost while others would ignore the trespass. If the intended victim was crying for help, then that is implied consent to enter the property, so there would be no trespass.

I know, it sounds like a law school exam answer.

Chas.

Does this mean that we are not breaking the law when we drive onto a 30.06 posted parking lot? or into a plant as long as it stays in the car?

It's the other way around. You can definitely be guilty of trespassing, while in your vehicle. However, one cannot be guilty of trespassing in someone else's vehicle. I think breaking and entering can still apply, but that also might be limited to some kind of structure other than a motor vehicle.

[Liberty]

It's the other way around. You can definitely be guilty of trespassing, while in your vehicle. However, one cannot be guilty of trespassing in someone else's vehicle. I think breaking and entering can still apply, but that also might be limited to some kind of structure other than a motor vehicle.

Yes, that makes more sense.



Edit: fixed mangled quotes

[srothstein]

As for trespass, you aren't going to be a trespasser on your own property (home and business) and trespass statutes don't apply to vehicles.

Chas.

Does this mean that we are not breaking the law when we drive onto a 30.06 posted parking lot? or into a plant as long as it stays in the car?

It's the other way around. You can definitely be guilty of trespassing, while in your vehicle. However, one cannot be guilty of trespassing in someone else's vehicle. I think breaking and entering can still apply, but that also might be limited to some kind of structure other than a motor vehicle.

I think this is wrong based on a recent change. Criminal Trespass now specifically includes entering "an aircraft or other vehicle" without consent as one of the properties protected by 30.05. I do not remember if this was done in this session or the previous one.

[C-dub]

As for trespass, you aren't going to be a trespasser on your own property (home and business) and trespass statutes don't apply to vehicles.

Chas.

Does this mean that we are not breaking the law when we drive onto a 30.06 posted parking lot? or into a plant as long as it stays in the car?

It's the other way around. You can definitely be guilty of trespassing, while in your vehicle. However, one cannot be guilty of trespassing in someone else's vehicle. I think breaking and entering can still apply, but that also might be limited to some kind of structure other than a motor vehicle.

I think this is wrong based on a recent change. Criminal Trespass now specifically includes entering "an aircraft or other vehicle" without consent as one of the properties protected by 30.05. I do not remember if this was done in this session or the previous one.

That might be true Steve, but there could be a couple of sticking points.

(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;

Entry, under this statute, means that the entire body must be in, so just reaching in wouldn't cut it. And is a locked vehicle itself effective notice according to "B?" Otherwise, I wonder if this isn't designed to mean the entry of a vehicle on property where being on the property, one is already guilty of trespass and entering a vehicle elevates it to criminal trespass.

[Skiprr]

I think this is wrong based on a recent change. Criminal Trespass now specifically includes entering "an aircraft or other vehicle" without consent as one of the properties protected by 30.05. I do not remember if this was done in this session or the previous one.

That change was made in the 2003 (78R) legislative session by HB 1872. The change in blue:

PC §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...

HB 2609 enrolled in 2009 (81R) put the text in the form it is today:

PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person...

So HB 2609 did specifically add "a recreational vehicle park," but "an aircraft or other vehicle" has been unchanged since 2003.

Just providin' some history. As to what does and doesn't constitute trespass of/into a vehicle, I'm just watchin' and learnin'...

[Charles L. Cotton]

Remember, we have two different provisions in the Penal Code for trespass violations; TPC §§30.05 and 30.06. While TPC §30.05 expressly includes "vehicles" in the prohibition, TPC §30.06 does not. Also, TPC §30.01(3) defines "vehicle" but not "property." The end result of all of this is the general trespass code provision found in TPC §30.05 applies to vehicles, but TPC §30.06 does not. While some prosecutors will argue that the language in TPC §30.05(a) constitutes a definition of "property" for purposes of TPC §30.06, it does not. (There may be case law on this point and I don't have time to look.)

If I understood the question correctly, it dealt with driving past a 30.06 sign with a gun in your car, so I was talking about TPC §30.06.

Edited to add: I just looked at the question again and it was not limited to TPC §30.06; it dealt with the presumption created in SB378. So I read the question too narrowly and my response was incorrect. As Steve and others pointed out, TPC §30.05 does apply to vehicles.

Chas.

[C-dub]

(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;

Entry, under this statute, means that the entire body must be in, so just reaching in wouldn't cut it. And is a locked vehicle itself effective notice according to "B?" Otherwise, I wonder if this isn't designed to mean the entry of a vehicle on property where being on the property, one is already guilty of trespass and entering a vehicle elevates it to criminal trespass.

So, does that mean that my interpretation is completely wrong or does it have at least some merit? Just curious.

[srothstein]

C-dub, I think your observation is partially correct. Entry definitely means the full body for criminal trespass so reaching in does not count. This is very different from the other portions of the same chapter, because for burglary it is any part of the body entering, or even any physical object connected to or held by the body.

As for the locked door, I would take it as notice. The exact wording I am relying on is: "fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders". Locked doors are an enclosure that are designed to keep people out, I would think.

From what I understand, this change was added because there were some claims that some panhandlers would actually get into cars to intimidate the people into giving them money or rides. Prior to this change, the law was not clear on what was broken if they did this, so they made it clear. I don't know if the change was needed, but there was one couple in Luling that did something like this. The girl would hitchhike while the guy hid and when someone stopped, both would get in. The one time I got the report, they did intimidate an older woman. I booked them for robbery though, so I did not think the law was unclear.