11-30-2012, 10:56 PM
[quote catmaster23]Check it out, it blows your argument out of the water, pun intended, sorry to say.
[b]76-6-206.3.[/b] [b]Criminal trespass on agricultural land or range land.[/b]
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Agricultural or range land" and "land" mean land as defined under Subsections (1)(d) and (e).
(b) "Authorization" means specific written permission by, or contractual agreement with, the owner or manager of the property.
© "Criminal trespass" means the elements of the crime of criminal trespass under Section [url "http://le.utah.gov/%7Ecode/TITLE76/htm/76_06_020600.htm"]76-6-206[/url].
(d) "Land in agricultural use" has the same meaning as in Section [url "http://le.utah.gov/%7Ecode/TITLE59/htm/59_02_050200.htm"]59-2-502[/url].
(e) "Range land" means privately owned land that is not fenced or divided into lots and that is generally unimproved. This land includes land used for livestock.
(2) A person is guilty of the class B misdemeanor criminal offense of criminal trespass on agricultural or range land and is liable for the civil damages under Subsection (5) if, under circumstances not amounting to a greater offense, and without authorization or a right under state law, the person enters or remains on agricultural or range land regarding which notice prohibiting entry is given by:
[#ff0000](a) personal communication to the person by the owner of the land, an employee of the owner, or a person with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(b) fencing or other form of enclosure a reasonable person would recognize as intended to exclude intruders; or
© posted signs or markers that would reasonably be expected to be seen by persons in the area of the borders of the land.[/#ff0000]
(3) A person is guilty of the class B misdemeanor criminal offense of cutting, destroying, or rendering ineffective the fencing of agricultural or range land if the person willfully cuts, destroys, or renders ineffective any fencing as described under Subsection (2)(b).
(4) In addition to restitution, as provided in Section [url "http://le.utah.gov/%7Ecode/TITLE76/htm/76_03_020100.htm"]76-3-201[/url], a person who commits any violation of Subsection (2) or (3) may also be liable for:
(a) statutory damages in the amount of the value of damages resulting from the violation of Subsection (2) or $500, whichever is greater; and
(b) reasonable attorney fees not to exceed $250, and court costs.
(5) Civil damages under Subsection (4) may be collected in a separate action by the owner of the agricultural or range land or the owner's assignee.[/quote]
There is the part you don't seem to understand. A reasonable person would expect that fencing intended to exclude people would match the type of fencing cited in many legal definitions as being required to exclude people.
Construction sites are required to use 6' chain link fencing to exclude people, a reasonable person would expect the same standard when ever persons are meant to be excluded.
Regardless of being range land or not, either condition a, b, or c, must be met as outlined in section 2 for a breach of the law to have occured.
So, no chain link fence, no posted markings or no personal communication that the land is private, no law being broken.
Looks like you're the one who got blown away.
I am correct, just like I said, you're mistaken.
[signature]
[b]76-6-206.3.[/b] [b]Criminal trespass on agricultural land or range land.[/b]
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Agricultural or range land" and "land" mean land as defined under Subsections (1)(d) and (e).
(b) "Authorization" means specific written permission by, or contractual agreement with, the owner or manager of the property.
© "Criminal trespass" means the elements of the crime of criminal trespass under Section [url "http://le.utah.gov/%7Ecode/TITLE76/htm/76_06_020600.htm"]76-6-206[/url].
(d) "Land in agricultural use" has the same meaning as in Section [url "http://le.utah.gov/%7Ecode/TITLE59/htm/59_02_050200.htm"]59-2-502[/url].
(e) "Range land" means privately owned land that is not fenced or divided into lots and that is generally unimproved. This land includes land used for livestock.
(2) A person is guilty of the class B misdemeanor criminal offense of criminal trespass on agricultural or range land and is liable for the civil damages under Subsection (5) if, under circumstances not amounting to a greater offense, and without authorization or a right under state law, the person enters or remains on agricultural or range land regarding which notice prohibiting entry is given by:
[#ff0000](a) personal communication to the person by the owner of the land, an employee of the owner, or a person with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(b) fencing or other form of enclosure a reasonable person would recognize as intended to exclude intruders; or
© posted signs or markers that would reasonably be expected to be seen by persons in the area of the borders of the land.[/#ff0000]
(3) A person is guilty of the class B misdemeanor criminal offense of cutting, destroying, or rendering ineffective the fencing of agricultural or range land if the person willfully cuts, destroys, or renders ineffective any fencing as described under Subsection (2)(b).
(4) In addition to restitution, as provided in Section [url "http://le.utah.gov/%7Ecode/TITLE76/htm/76_03_020100.htm"]76-3-201[/url], a person who commits any violation of Subsection (2) or (3) may also be liable for:
(a) statutory damages in the amount of the value of damages resulting from the violation of Subsection (2) or $500, whichever is greater; and
(b) reasonable attorney fees not to exceed $250, and court costs.
(5) Civil damages under Subsection (4) may be collected in a separate action by the owner of the agricultural or range land or the owner's assignee.[/quote]
There is the part you don't seem to understand. A reasonable person would expect that fencing intended to exclude people would match the type of fencing cited in many legal definitions as being required to exclude people.
Construction sites are required to use 6' chain link fencing to exclude people, a reasonable person would expect the same standard when ever persons are meant to be excluded.
Regardless of being range land or not, either condition a, b, or c, must be met as outlined in section 2 for a breach of the law to have occured.
So, no chain link fence, no posted markings or no personal communication that the land is private, no law being broken.
Looks like you're the one who got blown away.
I am correct, just like I said, you're mistaken.
[signature]