• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

No trespass signs stop police? Answer is no.

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
In this direct criminal appeal, Defendant-Appellant Ralph Carloss contends that two police officers violated the Fourth Amendment by knocking on his front door, seeking to speak with him. Ordinarily a police officer, like any citizen, has an implied license to approach a home, knock on the front door, and ask to speak with the occupants. Carloss, however, claims that “No Trespassing”signs posted aroundthe house and on the front door of his home revoked that implied license. We conclude, to the contrary, that under the circumstances presented here, those “No Trespassing” signs would not have conveyed to an objective officer that he could not approach the house and knock on the front door seeking to have a consensual conversation with the occupants

(sorry for format .. cut and pasted it but you can read the opinion .. its from the first page)

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-7082.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
Did you read the opinion? I did, carefully enough to find; "One final point: police ability to enter the curtilage is not untrammeled; if a homeowner revokes the license with sufficient clarity, police can no longer avail themselves of the implicit license.

signs that state 'come back with a warrant' should have that desired effect.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
When the two officers went to the house to speak with Carloss, they drove into the driveway, parked, walked to the front door, and knocked “for several minutes.” In response to their knocks, the officers could hear movement inside the house, but no one answered the front door. Instead, “a short time later,” Heather Wilson exited the back door of the house and met the officers in the side yard. (Id. at 17.) The officers explained why they were there and asked who else was in the home. Wilson responded that Carloss, Earnest Dry, and Katy Homberger were inside.

At about that time, Carloss exited the back door of the house and joined the officers and Wilson in the side yard. At no time did either Wilson or Carloss point out the “No Trespassing” signs to the officers or ask the officers to leave. The officers told Carloss that they suspected he had a machine gun. Carloss responded that he could not be around “ammunition” because of his prior criminal conviction. The officers then asked who lived in the house; Carloss responded that he had a room there,but Earnest Dry owned the house. (Earnest Dry’s mother, Diana Fishinghawk, was the actual owner.) When the officers asked Carloss if they could search the home, Carloss told them he would have to get “the man of the house,” referring to Dry. (Id.) As Carloss started to go inside, apparently to get Dry, the officers asked if they could go in with Carloss; he said, “sure.”
If you are not going to enforce your signs then you get what you deserve. Carloss invited the cops in. Whet do you expect?????
 

sidestreet

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
673
Location
, ,
I have doormats that state exactly that…,

signs that state 'come back with a warrant' should have that desired effect.

"come back with a warrant" given to me several Christmas' ago from my wife!

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29:11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Did you read the opinion? I did, carefully enough to find; "One final point: police ability to enter the curtilage is not untrammeled; if a homeowner revokes the license with sufficient clarity, police can no longer avail themselves of the implicit license. Of course, police can always enter a home if an emergency or other exigent circumstance has provided sufficient justification to enter. But where no such circumstances exist, police entry into the curtilage turns on the implicit license."

Beyond that, it was obfuscating word salad designed to convey precisely what OPie took away.
That is from a concurring opinion, not the actual opinion.
 

sidestreet

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
673
Location
, ,
Dang straight, color…,

You're saying your wife is a keeper?????

25 years and still counting. When folks ask me how long we've been married, I always tells'm "Not long enough!!!"

She puts the AWE in awesome!!! ;>)

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29:11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
25 years and still counting. When folks ask me how long we've been married, I always tells'm "Not long enough!!!"

She puts the AWE in awesome!!! ;>)

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29:11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.
Over 40 years for me. Check back in 15 years......
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Concuring opinion.
In my view, because the implicit license was not revoked, police could approach Carloss’s door and knock, as “any private citizen might do.” Jardines, 133 S. Ct. at 1416.
Excuse me Chief Judge Tymkovich, what you're saying is the "No Trespass" signs are irrelevant. If that is the case then a locked door doesn't mean do not enter. If you leave after Breaking and entering when asked to leave then no harm.
 

jeep1969

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
13
Location
Lake Lure, NC
Over 40 years for me. Check back in 15 years......

Kudos on the 40 yrs color I,m right there with sidestreet, 25 yrs and counting. Don't see that changing in the next 15 yrs.
By the way I grew up on a big farm outside Cincinnati on the Warren, Hamilton and Butler county lines. Too many changes and people moving in for me, moved to NC 21 yrs ago. Still visit family there from time to time.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Concuring opinion.
Excuse me Chief Judge Tymkovich, what you're saying is the "No Trespass" signs are irrelevant. If that is the case then a locked door doesn't mean do not enter. If you leave after Breaking and entering when asked to leave then no harm.

Well..yeah, thats what the judge says .. and many prior judges before him have said the same...

Now you know this .. do you how to keep them from knocking on your door?
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
Did you read the opinion? I did, carefully enough to find; "One final point: police ability to enter the curtilage is not untrammeled; if a homeowner revokes the license with sufficient clarity, police can no longer avail themselves of the implicit license. Of course, police can always enter a home if an emergency or other exigent circumstance has provided sufficient justification to enter. But where no such circumstances exist, police entry into the curtilage turns on the implicit license."

Beyond that, it was obfuscating word salad designed to convey precisely what OPie took away.

This is one more reason have your entire yard fenced with a LOCKED gate. One has to hop the fence and intrude upon the curtilage to get to the door. It has proven effective against stray dogs, salesmen, Baptists, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons and generally unwanted visitors for several years now. :)
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
In this direct criminal appeal, Defendant-Appellant Ralph Carloss contends that two police officers violated the Fourth Amendment by knocking on his front door, seeking to speak with him. Ordinarily a police officer, like any citizen, has an implied license to approach a home, knock on the front door, and ask to speak with the occupants. Carloss, however, claims that “No Trespassing”signs posted aroundthe house and on the front door of his home revoked that implied license. We conclude, to the contrary, that under the circumstances presented here, those “No Trespassing” signs would not have conveyed to an objective officer that he could not approach the house and knock on the front door seeking to have a consensual conversation with the occupants

(sorry for format .. cut and pasted it but you can read the opinion .. its from the first page)

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-7082.pdf

Well, gee! What the heck are the courts looking, for, anyway? A "police may not approach the house and knock on the front door seeking to have a consensual conversation with the occupants" sign?

Ok. FINE, "judge." Have it your way. Does THIS "convey to an objective officer that he could not approach the house and knock on the front door seeking to have a consensual conversation with the occupants?"

If you still say "No," your "honor," then you're not qualified to sit in that chair.

 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Well, gee! What the heck are the courts looking, for, anyway? A "police may not approach the house and knock on the front door seeking to have a consensual conversation with the occupants" sign?

Ok. FINE, "judge." Have it your way. Does THIS "convey to an objective officer that he could not approach the house and knock on the front door seeking to have a consensual conversation with the occupants?"

If you still say "No," your "honor," then you're not qualified to sit in that chair.


I have seen argument that this kind of signage may work ....
 
Top