Border group members face felony charges

World Net Daily ^ | 3-21-03 | By Jon Dougherty

[Marine Inspector]

Heck we may need a Presidential suite

LOL. Agreed.

[Marine Inspector]

infact sometimes they are ORDERED to release without paperwork

And you have proof of this?

If you do, then report it to the Government Accounting Office.

They love to go after corrupt Government employees.

[FITZ]

BTW, I didn't see anything in Texas law that allows you to search someone trespassing on private land

In Texas, worse things than being searched can happen to someone at least if they're trespassing on private land at night and the owner sees them as a threat.

[FITZ]

It's your choice whether you decide to confront and search someone who is a possible illegal

It seems it should be a matter of protecting private property ----but not everyone can tell who is an illegal or not ---if someone is just walking down a road, another person doesn't have the right to detain them to find out if they're illegal. It's one thing if the border patrol stops you and starts asking their questions but you can't have everyone doing that and then if you don't answer they would grab you and take you in ----but protecting private property is another matter because no one has a right to be on it without permission.

[texas_fool]

Looks like the rancher in this case should hve some signs posted if he doesn't already.

Sec.30.05. Criminal trespass. (a)A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on property or in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(1)had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2)received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b)For purposes of this section:
(1)"Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2)"Notice" means:
(A)oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B)fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C)a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D)the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:
(i)vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii)placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground; and
(iii)placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than: (a)100 feet apart on forest land; or (b)1,000 feet apart on land other than forest land; or
(E)the visible presence on the property of a crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time of entry.
(3)"Shelter center" as assigned by Sec.51.002(l), Human Resources Code.
(4)"Forest land" means land on which the trees are potentially valuable for timber products.
(c)It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor at the time of the offense was a fire fighter or emergency medical services personnel, as that term is defined by Sec.773.003, Health and Safety Code, acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty under exigent circumstances.
(d)An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless it is committed in a habitation or a shelter center or unless the actor carries a deadly weapon on or about his person during the commission of the offense, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e)A person does not have or receive notice under Subsection (b)(2)(D)unless a sign is placed at each entrance for vehicles to the property that gives notice that the presence of purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property indicates that entry is forbidden. The sign required under this subsection must he not less than two feet by three feet in size with block letters at least two inches In height. This subsection expires September 1, 1998.

[dirtboy]

In Texas, worse things than being searched can happen to someone at least if they're trespassing on private land at night and the owner sees them as a threat.

That's the point - someone simply walking across private property does not in and of itself constitute a threat or a felony.

[dirtboy]

(d)An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless it is committed in a habitation or a shelter center or unless the actor carries a deadly weapon on or about his person during the commission of the offense, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor.

For citizens arrest to be legal, the offense has to rise to a felony, unless it is misdemeanor riot.

[FITZ]

It depends ---- you actually don't need to wait until someone proves they were a threat, and there have been cases where the owner got off just because they perceived a threat --not because there was proof of a threat. Anyhow in Texas, it's never wise to be on private property at night when you weren't invited.

[dirtboy]

Anyhow in Texas, it's never wise to be on private property at night when you weren't invited.

That is usually sound health advice. It really goes down to the matter of whether a citizens arrest is legal in cases of simple trespass where there is no attempt being made to break into structures or assault the property owner. I would be disinclined to detain in any way illegals crossing private property, and instead report their presence to the Border Patrol.

[FITZ]

Also I was told by a sheriff (in Texas) that if I put up warning signs about my dogs and someone is on my private property uninvited and is bitten by the dogs, I'm okay ---even if the dogs aren't fenced as long as the dogs stay on the property while biting. He said there had to be warning signs though.

[texas_fool]

For citizens arrest to be legal, the offense has to rise to a felony, unless it is misdemeanor riot.

He may instead be able to shoot them. I'll have to find that one.

[dirtboy]

He may instead be able to shoot them. I'll have to find that one.

Both LEOs and private citizens are under the same restraint regarding use of lethal force, namely that they must be facing imminent danger from the person in order to use lethal force.