It's the law in
Minnesota:
It's the law in
Florida:
It's the law in
California:
That's just my state and two others I picked at random.
I reviewed each statute you posted. I then conducted a brief review of each state's laws concerning trespassing, examining many of the codes themselves, but mostly relying on reliable lay summaries.
Within the context of the hypothetical I presented, you are right, and I was wrong when I said the vast majority of states do not require notice for trespass to become a crime.
It's not true that simply crossing private property to reach a destination is a criminal violation in the vast majority of the states. Thank you for pushing back against this point. I simply assumed I was correct based on my understanding of a handful of states. I now have a more accurate picture of U.S. trespass law. Thank you.
44% of states treat unauthorized entry onto private land itself as the lowest level criminal trespass with no prior notice or demand needed. This definitely does not represent a "vast majority" or even a "majority" of states.
That being said, the reality of our law is more complicated. There are various nuances and exceptions. Let me explain them. First, let's look at your statutes you cited:
Minnesota:
1. When mere entry is a crime: entering a dwelling, locked, or posted building.
2. When demand/notice is required: "General premises" (open yards, fields, stores).
Florida:
1. When mere entry is a crime: any structure/conveyance (house, garage, boat), or land (fenced, cultivated, or posted).
2. When demand/notice is required: Unposted, unfenced land, the owner must give a direct order to leave.
California:
1. When mere entry is a crime: fenced/cultivated or posted land (first 2 times, represent civil infractions). Numerous carve-outs for special sites (airports, livestock pens, and domestic violence shelters).
2. When demand/notice is required: Unposted land open to the public becomes trespass only after owner's demand.
--
I briefly reviewed a few summaries of the laws for all 50 states.
44% of states (22) treat unauthorized entry onto private land itself as the lowest‑level criminal trespass. No prior notice or demand is needed.
56 % of states (28) require some form of notice before open‑land entry can be charged such as a posted sign, a fence, paint markings, or a verbal order to leave.
And it appears as though that in every state, entering a dwelling, locked building, fenced enclosure, or vehicle without consent is immediately a crime, and the notice question matters only for open land or semi‑public premises (like a shopping mall or a businesses establishment).
However, despite the fact my analogy was off, I still think it's quite useful.
Let me explain.
1. Improper border entry is equivalent to trespassing. Like the 44% of states that criminalize mere entry, federal immigration law makes it a misdemeanor to cross the border between ports of entry without permission.
2. Even where entry alone is criminal, a trespasser still has the right not to be treated with cruelty such as being shot on sight. The trespasser still has the right to receive a fair hearing, and to be punished proportionately.
3. Calling every person who crosses a fence line, or a border, a ruthless criminal ignores the levels of culpability that the law itself recognizes. For example, many jurisdictions start with an infraction or misdemeanor, reserve felonies for repeat or aggravated cases, and the jurisdictions don't allow vigilante violence.
4. The fact that the majority of the states require some form of notice or fencing prior to the crime of trespassing to be applicable is also an indication tells us that people should not be branded ruthless criminals for the first, non‑violent act of crossing an unseen line, whether that line is a fence or a national border.
So while I was wrong on the percentages, illegal entry into the country is most comparable to the lowest tier of trespass, not burglary, robbery, or violence, and the way we treat illegal immigrants should be comparable to how we treat people who trespass onto private property.
Also, while it's more rare, I think it's reasonable to assume that most U.S. citizens have crossed some type of fenced or posted property without permission at some point in their life. I am sure none of those U.S. citizens consider themselves to be criminals.
The fundamental point still stands:
mere trespassing, just like improper entry, is not a serious crime.
