Bill, myself, and you actually see things pretty much the same way. While a house and the land it is on is private property, the public at large has certain limited 'rights' of access up to the entrance. It's common sense.
As you wrote, the right to speak or initiate conversation with the occupant, without advance permission, is something that many federal governments have recognized as being legal. Things change when there's a "No Trespassing" sign, with gated communities, locked buildings and such. Tom C. >From: Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >Subject: Re: A Gray Matter >Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:24:49 -0400 > >William Robb wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tom Cakalic" > > Subject: Re: A Gray Matter > > > > > > > >> I might be mistaken, but I think in many cases that 'accesses' to >private > >> property are also considered valid for certain public use unless they >are > >> posted as "No Trespassing" and even then maybe there's a disconnect > >> between > >> the law and the way things really work (and of course the laws are > >> different > >> depending where you are). > >> > >> For instance, a walkway to one's door is generally used by the >public... > >> delivery man, repair man, sales man...even though that walkway runs > >> through > >> one's yard. > >> > > > > Delivery people and the like (the paper boy, mailman, whatever), are > > generally considered to be invitees, and are automatically granted >limited > > access to your property to conduct their business. The same with meter > > readers, who are granted access to your yard to do what they need to do. > > This does not, however, grant the casual pedestrian permission to use >your > > property as a shortcut, that would be considered tresspassing. > > I believe that in the specific instance which brought us to this >discussion, > > the photographer would be considered a casual pedestrian rather than an > > invitee, and would be allowed on private property at the owners >suffrance, > > and not because she had any particular right to be there. > > > > William Robb > > > > > > >I'd have to agree with Bill. In most of the US trespass law is very >specifically defined. e.g. Around here (PA) if a property is developed, >in use, fenced or posted, you shouldn't be on it without permission. If >the land is undeveloped and not obviously used you can make limited, >non-destructive use of it. Basically, if you're caught on the property >and haven't done anything to alter or damage it, about all the landowner >can do is ask you to leave. But once he's done that, if you don't >comply you could be considered a trespasser. I know there are special >rules for railroad properties but can't remember what they are, other >than they're more restrictive. I would consider a sidewalk from a >public space to an entrance an invitation to knock on the door if you >need to speak with the occupant. Nothing more. I seriously doubt a >landowner could restrict someone from using a sidewalk along the >perimeter of his property. > >-- >Scott Loveless >http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
