Re: Overheard on the scanner

Sean O'Hara <seanohara@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Keith F. Lynch 
> declared:
>> <rkshullat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> How are you supposed to know which of the two properties it's between
>> it's giving notice of?  It's often not possible for a casual observer
>> to tell which side of a property line a fence is on.
> 
> Usually the fence belongs to the person whose property is enclosed 
> by it. If the fence doesn't enclose an area, it indicates that 
> someone wants to prevent people from going back and forth across 
> that line.
> 
> I can think of no situation in which a fence shouldn't be construed 
> as "do not cross this line."

The question is who (or what) the "do not cross this line" is meant for.
In the case of the "separation fence" I mentioned, it lies between the
end of a cul-de-sac (which frequently has lots of young kids playing in
and around it) and the 6-lane through road which lies just beyond. It's
there to keep the young kids out of traffic. It was put there and is
maintained by the neighborhood association which maintains the common
areas of the development. The area on both sides of the fence is
publicly accessible (a sidewalk runs right next to the fence on either
side). It would hard to to come up with a reason that crossing it
violates someone's property rights and pretty much impossible to come up
with a violation of a law, at least here. There are enough different
jurisdictions in the US, not to mention the world, that it's entirely
possible that some place has a "crossing any fence anywhere is illegal"
ordinance.

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