(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when, knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so: (1) Such person enters or remains in premises which are posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders or are fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, or which belong to the state and are appurtenant to any state institution; or (2) such person enters or remains in any premises for the purpose of hunting, trapping or fishing; or (3) such person enters or remains on public land which is posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders or is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.

(b) Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class C misdemeanor, except that any person found guilty under subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor and fined not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars.

(1969, P.A. 828, S. 111; 1971, P.A. 871, S. 20; P.A. 92-260, S. 44; P.A. 05-234, S. 3; P.A. 12-84, S. 1.)

History: 1971 act added Subsec. (a)(2) specifying that person's entering or remaining in premises for purpose of hunting, trapping or fishing although he knows he is not licensed or privileged to do so is criminal trespass in the third degree; P.A. 92-260 made technical changes and deleted redundant language in Subsec. (a); P.A. 05-234 added Subsec. (a)(3) re entry or remaining on public land which is posted or is fenced or otherwise enclosed and to make technical changes, effective January 1, 2006; P.A. 12-84 amended Subsec. (b) to add provision re any person found guilty under Subsec. (a)(2) shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor and fined not less than $500 or more than $1,000.

See Sec. 53a-44a re surcharge on fine for trespass on public land.

Cited. 203 C. 466; Id., 624; 240 C. 708.

Cited. 20 CA 599; 24 CA 195; 35 CA 714.

Cited. 35 CS 555.

Subsec. (a):

Evidence that defendant entered building by not using main entrance but instead forcing open a locked door labeled with a no trespassing sign was sufficient to support conviction under section. 83 CA 377. Statute does not demand that premises be completely enclosed to fall within its purview, but they must be enclosed sufficiently to exclude intruders, namely, those who purposefully enter the property despite having no legitimate reason to do so; where entire property was enclosed by combination of concrete wall and chain link fence, save only for opening in front, which allowed pedestrian traffic to access sidewalk by way of set of steps, property was sufficiently enclosed, even with small gateless entryway, to bring it within the protections of section. 105 CA 179.