theory-of-law trespassing acknowledgement knowledge
What would happen if you entered a building and didn’t leave because you didn’t think the person there was the owner?
<p>Imagine you come across a building in a public place with some signs on it and an unlocked door. The signs make it seem like a shop or activity center rather than saying anything like “Keep Out”.</p>
<p>You go inside and inside a person coldly says you aren’t welcome there and it isn’t a public place you can just enter at will, and you shouldn’t have just opened the door and walked in.</p>
<p>If they actually owned or managed the building, I am pretty sure there are laws where if you do not leave a place after the owner, representative or resident asks you to, you are trespassing and it’s a crime.</p>
<p>But, what if it turned out that the person inside was not who they tried to seem, or simply didn’t have the authority they claimed to. Maybe it is actually a public building, and you do have the right to go in, and that person isn’t telling the truth.</p>
<p>Given the legitimate possibility on reasonable grounds that someone inside some given building is not actually supposed to be there, how might this apply to the law about it being mandatory to leave? What if you claimed you either did not think they were really in charge, or that you simply had no way of verifying?</p>
<p>In other words, if it turns out it is their building, you have committed trespassing for not leaving, but this would seem to imply that you must follow the orders even of imposters or themselves intruders, just to avoid that potential illegal entering. You may not be legally required to leave, but you would have to even in that circumstance to avoid the claim against you.</p>
<p>Does the law have any way of acknowledging that you cannot always make perfect legal decisions in situations where you are lacking the precise information you would need, to do so?</p>

<p>While the elements of criminal trespass vary from one U.S. state to another, the majority rule is that a good faith belief that you have a claim of a legal right to be present on property (even if you are ultimately found to be incorrect on the merits) prevents you from having the intent necessary to commit criminal trespass.</p>
<p>The majority rule is that there is strict civil liability for trespass without regard to intent, but the minority rule that civil trespass is an intentional tort isn't terribly uncommon either, in which case criminal and civil liability for trespass would often be the same.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Given the legitimate possibility on reasonable grounds that someone
inside some given building is not actually supposed to be there, how
might this apply to the law about it being mandatory to leave? What if
you claimed you either did not think they were really in charge, or
that you simply had no way of verifying?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is irrelevant. The burden is on you not to go into property where you are not allowed to be, and not on someone else to tell you to leave.</p>
<p>If you know you have no right to be on the property, the fact that you believe someone else may also not have the authority to control who is on the property is not a defense to criminal trespass. You can be guilty of criminal trespass in most jurisdictions even if no one asks you to leave, if you know that you do not have permission to be on the property. Lack of permission is the default in the absence of someone with apparent authority to do so telling you otherwise.</p>
