WA Senator Introduces Trespass Fluorescent Orange Bill For Second Time in a Year

[Bob33]

The bill would allow, not require landowners to use orange paint. It would be alternative to the use of signs to conspicuously post land.

[bowbuild]

If you aren't trespassing, you're not trespassing.  Doesn't matter if someone posted it illegally with signs or orange paint.

Tell that to the officer when they show up.... Officers carry GPS and keep track of who's property is who's....or do they write you and let the courts figure it out??

[Curly]

If you aren't trespassing, you're not trespassing.  Doesn't matter if someone posted it illegally with signs or orange paint.

Tell that to the officer when they show up.... Officers carry GPS and keep track of who's property is who's....or do they write you and let the courts figure it out??

I thought it was already established that they won't write you up unless the property owner requests it?

[headshot5]

I guess my question would be for those against this law...  Do you own private property (I.E. timber property, farm property etc.)?   

As a property owner I am for this.  I don't think this is going to get abused quite as much as many people think.  It sucks having to go out and replace signs 2 or 3 times a year that get ripped down by those who don't want to ask permission. This would make it so anyone trespassing knowingly is doing so. 

If someone called you in as trespassing on their property, and it public property I'm guessing the officer who responds to the call would read them the riot act for wasting time, and for improperly marking public property.     

[bowbuild]

If you aren't trespassing, you're not trespassing.  Doesn't matter if someone posted it illegally with signs or orange paint.

Tell that to the officer when they show up.... Officers carry GPS and keep track of who's property is who's....or do they write you and let the courts figure it out??

I thought it was already established that they won't write you up unless the property owner requests it?

Ya, alright....2 times I have had guys call the cops, and claim I was on their land.....it was timber company, and the officer was going to write me for trespass, until the guard for the company showed up.....so those that think they won't, you are dead wrong.

Bigtex,

               You have a property owner in front of you with a accused trespasser, do you check the owners statements, or do you take their word for it, write the guy, and let the courts figure it out? Is it required for officers to check the owners boundries before you write somone up?

[Curly]

That's a good question and your instance is one that I really never thought about much............didn't really think it was possible for a LEO to simply believe a landowner that says you are trespassing.  You'd think he would have to go take a look at any lines to show where the property line is before he writes up a guy.  The trespassing laws are favorable when there is no fence or signs....   

[bowbuild]

That's a good question and your instance is one that I really never thought about much............didn't really think it was possible for a LEO to simply believe a landowner that says you are trespassing.  You'd think he would have to go take a look at any lines to show where the property line is before he writes up a guy.  The trespassing laws are favorable when there is no fence or signs....   

Ok, now does the officer need to see the trespasser, or can he take the owner at his word? To me, unless there are multiple witnesses, it is thrown out of court. Problem...any owner at any time can claim anything, there has to be more evidence than a owner saying he/she is trespassing. How would you like a anti claiming you are trespassing to ruin your day, and even worse the cost guilty, or not, of proving otherwise. These laws can be turned against the most ethical hunter.

[bigtex]

That's a good question and your instance is one that I really never thought about much............didn't really think it was possible for a LEO to simply believe a landowner that says you are trespassing.  You'd think he would have to go take a look at any lines to show where the property line is before he writes up a guy.  The trespassing laws are favorable when there is no fence or signs....   

Ok, now does the officer need to see the trespasser, or can he take the owner at his word? To me, unless there are multiple witnesses, it is thrown out of court. Problem...any owner at any time can claim anything, there has to be more evidence than a owner saying he/she is trespassing. How would you like a anti claiming you are trespassing to ruin your day, and even worse the cost guilty, or not, of proving otherwise. These laws can be turned against the most ethical hunter.

Good question. Washington's misdemeanor presence rule (RCW 10.31.100) basically says an officer can only cite/arrest someone for a misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor when the offense occurs in the presence of an officer. There then of course are several exceptions to that law, one of which is criminal trespass in the 2nd degree. So an officer does NOT need to see the individual trespassing in order to cite/arrest them.

Now obviously there still needs to be probable cause, evidence, etc. But to answer your question, no an officer does not need to see the actual act in progress.

[bigtex]

Bigtex,

               You have a property owner in front of you with a accused trespasser, do you check the owners statements, or do you take their word for it, write the guy, and let the courts figure it out? Is it required for officers to check the owners boundries before you write somone up?

I would hope the officer would verify statements and boundary lines.

The prosecutor has one year to file misdemeanor charges on someone (criminal trespass 2nd degree is a misdemeanor.) So it's not like if the officer doesn't cite the guy on the spot the case is over with. Most counties now actually don't want officers to cite offenders with misdemeanors/gross misdemeanors, they want the officer to send the prosecutor the report and at that time the prosecutor will decide to file charges, however some smaller counties still leave it up to the officer.

[Curly]

The discussion is all well and good but still doesn't explain to me what some find objectionable to the proposed bill (s).

[bowbuild]

That's a good question and your instance is one that I really never thought about much............didn't really think it was possible for a LEO to simply believe a landowner that says you are trespassing.  You'd think he would have to go take a look at any lines to show where the property line is before he writes up a guy.  The trespassing laws are favorable when there is no fence or signs....   

Ok, now does the officer need to see the trespasser, or can he take the owner at his word? To me, unless there are multiple witnesses, it is thrown out of court. Problem...any owner at any time can claim anything, there has to be more evidence than a owner saying he/she is trespassing. How would you like a anti claiming you are trespassing to ruin your day, and even worse the cost guilty, or not, of proving otherwise. These laws can be turned against the most ethical hunter.

Good question. Washington's misdemeanor presence rule (RCW 10.31.100) basically says an officer can only cite/arrest someone for a misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor when the offense occurs in the presence of an officer. There then of course are several exceptions to that law, one of which is criminal trespass in the 2nd degree. So an officer does NOT need to see the individual trespassing in order to cite/arrest them.

Now obviously there still needs to be probable cause, evidence, etc. But to answer your question, no an officer does not need to see the actual act in progress.

The problem with that is there are some people that will go to any means to mess with hunters. A officer trying to be fair to the complaintant can be swayed by the emotional persistence of unrational people. I hope officers do their homework before citing a accused trespasser, as if the person is not guilty of the crime, the money spent to defend ones self is a harsh punishment for doing nothing.

[JimmyHoffa]

BigTex, do the officers carry regularly updated maps--paper or computer?  Or do they have to call in coordinates/check assessor sites/call a surveyor/skynet drones?

[Curly]

I'm wondering if the whole reason for this proposal is because of most timber companies now charging for access?  It seems like now it would be beneficial for the timber companies to mark the boundaries of their land so that everyone knows where the lines are.  Paint on the trees would be the most cost effective method..........

 

[bearpaw]

Makes the land owner's job so much easier.  Paint is durable, and can't be torn down or moved.   

All this BS about anti's posting an area or getting cited for tresspassing is just that. 

Too many people try to tip toe around the public access verbage.  If you have permission to hunt a piece of land its no problem.  Permission can be in the form of written permission to be on private property or something as simple as here is the map of state land, and my GPS position.  When you decide to hunt without permission you get knotted up by law enforcement.  If you cross a boundary by accident or on purpose you might get yourself in trouble. 

I've always made it a policy that if I don't have written permission or specifc rights to hunt a piece of ground I stay off of it.  No need for an "I thought I could" excuse when it is written down.

   spot on....

[bowbuild]

I'm wondering if the whole reason for this proposal is because of most timber companies now charging for access?  It seems like now it would be beneficial for the timber companies to mark the boundaries of their land so that everyone knows where the lines are.  Paint on the trees would be the most cost effective method..........

 

Curly,
                  You must be behind the curve....Don't you think it was ironic that they WDFW pushed for a RCW that is directed at hunters, infact if you are in the "act" of hunting the penalty is harsher for the hunter than your average "walker." It is also quite ironic that after this law was passed (a yr later) most timber companies went to charging?? Hmm, then they recruit retiring wardens that have close ties with active officers to patrol their lands....hmm, don't sound fishy to me. Now they want to make it easier for companies, and large land owners to post their lands.....this over the last couple of yrs is turning Wa. into Texas real fast. If you like that great, not for me...