Re: Overheard on the scanner

Keith F. Lynch <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Sean O'Hara <seanohara@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> By any reasonable standard, a fence should be interpreted as a
>> no-trespassing notice.
> 
> I disagree.  And so does the law here in Virginia, which clearly
> requires *verbal* notice.  Earlier today in this thread Robert Shull
> pointed out that a fence may be for the purpose of keeping a child
> from wandering.  It may also be to keep an animal in.  Or it may be
> that the previous owner erected it, and the new owner found it easier
> to cut a hole in it than to tear the whole thing down, and just as
> useful.  As I said, I never know who cuts holes in fences.

Texas law is different in this case. For the separation fence I was
talking about (between two public areas) it wouldn't matter, but a
boundary fence is considered "effective notice" for the requirements
of a criminal trespass charge.

	Robert
-- 
Robert K. Shull                           Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot
com