Revises provisions relating to crimes. (BDR 15-908)
Summary
SB371 revises Nevada’s trespass statute, NRS 207.200, by extending the period during which a prior warning not to trespass remains legally effective. Under current law, a person can be convicted of misdemeanor trespass if they return after being warned within the previous 24 months; the bill changes that lookback period to 36 months. The bill does not change the basic elements of trespass, the available methods for giving notice, or the misdemeanor penalty, but it does broaden the time window in which an earlier warning can support a trespass charge.
The bill also leaves intact the existing ways an owner or occupant may provide notice, including fluorescent orange paint, fencing, posted signs, cultivated land, or an oral or written demand to vacate. It preserves the statute’s rules on prima facie evidence of trespass and the definitions of key terms such as “fence,” “guest,” and “cultivated land.” In practical terms, SB371 gives property owners and occupants a longer period to rely on a prior warning when seeking to exclude repeat trespassers.
Impact
SB371 amends NRS 207.200, Nevada’s criminal trespass law, by increasing the duration of a trespass warning from 24 months to 36 months. This expands the period during which a prior warning can be used to establish misdemeanor trespass for a person who returns to land or a building without permission. The bill affects property owners, occupants, law enforcement, prosecutors, and individuals previously warned off private or public property, but it does not alter the underlying misdemeanor classification or the statute’s notice methods and definitions.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported, with unanimous approval in the Senate (21-0) and strong approval in the Assembly (35-7). No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate detailed public arguments. The vote pattern indicates broad legislative agreement that the change was acceptable, though not entirely without opposition in the Assembly.
Contention
The main point of contention is the length of time a trespass warning should remain effective. Supporters likely view the change as a modest enforcement tool that better protects property rights and reduces repeat trespassing, while opponents may see the extension from 24 to 36 months as expanding criminal liability based on older warnings and potentially making it easier to prosecute conduct that occurred long after the original notice. The Assembly’s seven no votes suggest some concern about the broader reach of the statute, even though the bill ultimately passed comfortably.