Trespass

[WHEELER]

Lets just say theoretically speaking your friend lives next to a difficult neighbor.

About 3 months ago a cat is missing and they see it in an animal trap and they go and retrieve it by simply going in the open yard (no fence) & opening the cage (no physical contact, No police, no report, nothing, also no prior trespass warning by owner or formally.) 3 months later your friend get a served for criminal trespass. Not even sure where to start on this, as 14.13 specifically exempts this in my reading, how could charges even be filed?



§63. Criminal trespass

-snip-

F. The following persons may enter or remain upon immovable property of another, unless specifically forbidden to do so by the owner or other person with authority, either orally or in writing:

(6) The owner of a domestic animal while in the sole process of merely retrieving his domestic animal from immovable property and not having a firearm or other weapon on his person.

 

[SpeedRacer]

What a nutjob.

Strange that you can legally go retrieve your pet, but not while having a weapon on you. WTF?

 

[Yrdawg]

What a nutjob.

Strange that you can legally go retrieve your pet, but not while having a weapon on you. WTF?

Thats the way I read it tho......go on private prop to retrieve pets, but unarmed

If it's my pet I don't like the law but if its your pet I don't want a stranger wandering up with a GUN.......awwwwwwwwww MWAG

 

[LCPL 4]

1) he has a buddy at the courthouse
Or
2) he convinced someone that your friend was previously told to keep out
Or
3) both
Or
4) he lied
Or
5) lawyer who agreed is not very smart
Or
6) all the above
Etc

Edit- don't forget newspaper may contain no trespass ad. Sorry for format on ipod

 

[JLouv]

Really? newspaper?? That would be akin to me posting a thread here saying that I will not tolerate anyone trespassing on my property. I'm about 99% sure that my neighbors are not members of this forum, so it's not their fault they don't know, even though I technically posted the message.

Lots of people choose not to receive the local newspaper, so how can they be held accountable for ignorance of it's contents?

 

[charlie12]

Didn't all that change a few years back to do away with all that newspaper crap and that all land is posted now?

 

[Yrdawg]

Didn't all that change a few years back to do away with all that newspaper crap and that all land is posted now?

Yea...pretty much but theres still some sinage mumbo jumbo in the deal somewhere, don't remember all that

But yea, the RS did change to make it private and if you don't have permission don't be there

My favorite part is that you can now escort them off property moveable or imovable

Best advice on that that I've seen lately tho was from Nolacop....you won't be tried by law, you'll be tried by humans and a cranky old judge

 

[Bearco]

Didn't all that change a few years back to do away with all that newspaper crap and that all land is posted now?

It was changed. What the OP is posting is still part of the exception.
RS 14:63

§63. Criminal trespass

A. No person shall enter any structure, watercraft, or movable owned by another without express, legal, or implied authorization.

B. No person shall enter upon immovable property owned by another without express, legal, or implied authorization.

C. No person shall remain in or upon property, movable or immovable, owned by another without express, legal, or implied authorization.

D. It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution for a violation of Subsection A, B, or C of this Section, that the accused had express, legal, or implied authority to be in the movable or on the immovable property.

E. The following persons may enter or remain upon the structure, watercraft, movable or immovable property, of another:

(1) A duly commissioned law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties.

(2) Any firefighter, whether or not a member of a volunteer or other fire department, and any employee or agent of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry engaged in locating and suppressing a fire.

(3) Emergency medical personnel engaged in the rendering of medical assistance to an individual.

(4) Any federal, state or local government employee, public utility employee or agent engaged in suppressing or dealing with an emergency that presents an imminent danger to human safety or health or to the environment.

(5) Any federal, state or local government employee, public utility employee or agent in the performance of his duties when otherwise authorized by law to enter or remain on immovable or movable property.

(6) Any person authorized by a court of law to enter or remain on immovable property.

(7) Any person exercising the mere right of passage to an enclosed estate, as otherwise provided by law.

F. The following persons may enter or remain upon immovable property of another, unless specifically forbidden to do so by the owner or other person with authority, either orally or in writing:

(1) A professional land surveyor or his authorized personnel, engaged in the "Practice of Land Surveying", as defined in R.S. 37:682.

(2) A person, affiliate, employee, agent or contractor of any business which is regulated by the Louisiana Public Service Commission or by a local franchising authority or the Federal Communication Commission under the Cable Reregulation Act of 1992 or of a municipal or public utility, while acting in the course and scope of his employment or agency relating to the operation, repair, or maintenance of a facility, servitude or any property located on the immovable property which belongs to such a business.

(3) Any person making a delivery, soliciting, selling any product or service, conducting a survey or poll, a real estate licensee or other person who has a legitimate reason for making a delivery, conducting business or communicating with the owner, lessee, custodian or a resident of the immovable property, and who, immediately upon entry, seeks to make the delivery, to conduct business or to conduct the communication.

(4) An employee of the owner, lessee or custodian of the immovable property while performing his duties, functions and responsibilities in the course and scope of his employment.

(5) The owner of domestic livestock or his employees or agents while in the process of retrieving his domestic livestock that have escaped from an area fenced to retain such domestic livestock.

(6) The owner of a domestic animal while in the sole process of merely retrieving his domestic animal from immovable property and not having a firearm or other weapon on his person.

(7) Any candidate for political office or any person working on behalf of a candidate for a political office.

(8) The owner or occupant of a watercraft or vessel traveling in salt water engaged in any lawful purpose for the purpose of retrieval of his property or for obtaining assistance in an emergency situation.

G. The following penalties shall be imposed for a violation of this Section:

(1) For the first offense, the fine shall be not less than one hundred dollars and not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both.

(2) For the second offense, the fine shall be not less than three hundred dollars and not more than seven hundred fifty dollars, or imprisonment for not more than ninety days, or both.

(3) For the third offense and all subsequent offenses, the fine shall be not less than five hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisonment for not less than sixty days and not more than six months, or both, and forfeiture to the law enforcement authority of any property seized in connection with the violation.

(4) A person may be convicted of a second offense and any subsequent offenses regardless of whether any prior conviction involved the same structure, watercraft, movable or immovable property and regardless of the time sequence of the occurrence of the offenses.

H. The provisions of any other law notwithstanding, owners, lessees, and custodians of structures, watercraft, movable or immovable property shall not be answerable for damages sustained by any person who enters upon the structure, watercraft, movable or immovable property without express, legal or implied authorization, or who without legal authorization, remains upon the structure, watercraft, movable or immovable property after being forbidden by the owner, or other person with authority to do so; however, the owner, lessee or custodian of the property may be answerable for damages only upon a showing that the damages sustained were the result of the intentional acts or gross negligence of the owner, lessee or custodian.

I. A minor ten years old or younger shall not be arrested, detained or apprehended for the crime of trespass.

Amended by Acts 1960, No. 458, §1; Acts 1964, No. 497, §1; Acts 1981, No. 78, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982; Acts 1990, No. 870, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1991; Acts 1991, No. 438, §1; Acts 1993, No. 887, §1; Acts 2003, No. 279, §3; Acts 2003, No. 802, §1.

 

[LACamper]

I know I'm going to get blasted for this, but....

See? None of this would have happened if the cat owner would have kept his cat inside! It sounds like a case where friend's cat is allowed to roam all over the neighbor's property. He wouldn't have set up a cage otherwise.
Many cat owners think they have the right to let their cat owners roam the neighborhood. It isn't right. They're annoying. They get all over our cars. I had a fresh hairball on my windshield a few days ago. They mess in our gardens and it stinks. They chase the birds away from my bird feeders. I'm about ready to get the bow out and make some kitty kabob... Keep the damned cat inside. And don't tell me about how they need to roam. I knew someone that had a cheetah. If he'd let that cheetah roam the neighborhood he'd have been in big trouble. Same thing goes for pit bulls. Why are cats allowed to do this?

 

[Yrdawg]

We have a feral living in the woods, it avoids the dogs, so far, we have no other wandering cats cause , well, there just ain't any..

and no, no animals should have free range on OP property

My neighbors dogs and my dogs run on each others yards but thats by common consent

 

[Guate_shooter]

I agree this is some serious BS, I have a neighbor who lives 2 houses down from me, she had about 10 outside cats she fed them and took care of them BUT she would let them do what they wanted. I am seriously OCD when it comes to my vehicles and I detail them at least once a month which is a lot considering I work offshore so nobody drives it for 14 days. Anyways to make the long story short one of this mentioned creatures LOVED to sleep on top of my truck I nicely asked her to take control over it and she said they were outside cats and there was nothing she could do, so I said OK not a problem I will take care of it if it happens again.

She called the cops and told them I threaten her to kill all her cats, which is total BS and now every time one of her damm cats goes missing she blames me.

WTF!

Thats the same stupid lady without a damm thing to do that calls the cops when I am shooting in my back yard eventhough I prooved her already that it is totally legal as long as its before 7 pm. She hates me BAD!

 

[Dave328]

Few things **** me off more than inconsiderate assholes who let their cats roam the block pissing and shitting all over the place. Ever come home at night and find that your front porch has been soaked with cat ****?? As far as I'm concerned any free-roaming cat is a disease carrying nuisance and should be shot on sight.
Now a dog that got loose, I'll catch and call the owner.

 

[Akajun]

Sounds to me like he went to a Justice of the Peace and had an affadavit warrant signed. Most Justice of the Peace do not investigate crimes, you go in, tell em what happened, they sign out a warrant. By the same token, your friend could go to the same justice of the peace and have a warrant signed out for Cruelty to Animals and the guy would be served. Both of you would be stuck fighting it in court.

IMHO the Justice of the Peace Laws need a serious revision requiring the investigation of crimes before a warrant is signed. Yours is a not uncommon story.

 

[Pacioli]

I know I'm going to get blasted for this, but....

See? None of this would have happened if the cat owner would have kept his cat inside! It sounds like a case where friend's cat is allowed to roam all over the neighbor's property. He wouldn't have set up a cage otherwise.
Many cat owners think they have the right to let their cat owners roam the neighborhood. It isn't right. They're annoying. They get all over our cars. I had a fresh hairball on my windshield a few days ago. They mess in our gardens and it stinks. They chase the birds away from my bird feeders. I'm about ready to get the bow out and make some kitty kabob... Keep the damned cat inside. And don't tell me about how they need to roam. I knew someone that had a cheetah. If he'd let that cheetah roam the neighborhood he'd have been in big trouble. Same thing goes for pit bulls. Why are cats allowed to do this?

This^

 

[drumz2129]

I know I'm going to get blasted for this, but....

See? None of this would have happened if the cat owner would have kept his cat inside! It sounds like a case where friend's cat is allowed to roam all over the neighbor's property. He wouldn't have set up a cage otherwise.
Many cat owners think they have the right to let their cat owners roam the neighborhood. It isn't right. They're annoying. They get all over our cars. I had a fresh hairball on my windshield a few days ago. They mess in our gardens and it stinks. They chase the birds away from my bird feeders. I'm about ready to get the bow out and make some kitty kabob... Keep the damned cat inside. And don't tell me about how they need to roam. I knew someone that had a cheetah. If he'd let that cheetah roam the neighborhood he'd have been in big trouble. Same thing goes for pit bulls. ALL DOGSWhy are cats allowed to do this?

I agree with most of the post except for this part. All dogs can get in trouble so dont just pick on my pit bulls. They don't like racial profiling.

 

[Yrdawg]

I agree with most of the post except for this part. All dogs can get in trouble so dont just pick on my pit bulls. They don't like racial profiling.

Unless they're really loveable

 

[honestlou]

Wow! If only my car could turn on a dime like this thread! Does anyone remember the original post about the poor cat owner with the asshat neighbor?

 

[oleheat]

I know I'm going to get blasted for this, but....

See? None of this would have happened if the cat owner would have kept his cat inside! It sounds like a case where friend's cat is allowed to roam all over the neighbor's property. He wouldn't have set up a cage otherwise.
Many cat owners think they have the right to let their cat owners roam the neighborhood. It isn't right. They're annoying. They get all over our cars. I had a fresh hairball on my windshield a few days ago. They mess in our gardens and it stinks. They chase the birds away from my bird feeders. I'm about ready to get the bow out and make some kitty kabob... Keep the damned cat inside. And don't tell me about how they need to roam. I knew someone that had a cheetah. If he'd let that cheetah roam the neighborhood he'd have been in big trouble. Same thing goes for pit bulls. Why are cats allowed to do this?

You won't get hassled from me- I agree with you, brother.

There are VERY FEW THINGS that tick me off more than cat scratches all over my truck.

I had the same kind of problems in the past.

 

[Pacioli]

Wow! If only my car could turn on a dime like this thread! Does anyone remember the original post about the poor cat owner with the asshat neighbor?

The point of the "turn" is that the "poor" cat owner isn't necessarily the victim.

 

[oleheat]

The point of the "turn" is that the "poor" cat owner isn't necessarily the victim.

Yeah. There's a reason whey they call them HOUSEcats. That's a hint.