Also known as: unlawful entries · illegal entry
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
The crime of entering another's real property by fraud or other illegal means without the owner's consent. This conduct constitutes trespass when the entry lacks permission or legal authority.
The crime of entering another's real property by fraud or other illegal means without the owner's consent. This conduct constitutes trespass when the entry lacks permission or legal authority.
Ulysses Ulrich sees Usha Upton attempting to climb through a broken window into his storage shed at night. Ulysses believes the shed and its tools are in his possession. He uses reasonable force to push her back and prevent the entry from succeeding.
Officers arrive at a nearly empty home filled with beer cans and drug paraphernalia. Uri Underwood and several others are inside behaving as if they own the place. The officers infer from the barren condition and the occupants' conduct that the gathering is unauthorized and arrest them for unlawful entry.
An alien's crossing of a border into a country without proper documents or inspection. Such entry violates federal immigration statutes and can trigger criminal penalties or removal proceedings.
Umar Underwood's parents crossed the border without inspection. A state statute bars their child from enrolling in public school solely because of that entry. The child sues, claiming the denial violates equal protection.
An alien's crossing of a border into a country without proper documents or inspection. Such entry violates federal immigration statutes and can trigger criminal penalties or removal proceedings.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Umar Usmani pries open a side door of a warehouse at night carrying a crowbar. He intends to steal electronics stored inside. The entry itself serves as a substantial step toward completing the planned theft.
Police first enter Ulysses Usher's apartment without a warrant and observe drug ledgers. They later obtain a valid warrant based solely on an informant's tip unrelated to the entry. The ledgers are seized under the warrant and admitted at trial.
4 common questions
Unlawful entry requires only the unauthorized crossing of a property line. Burglary additionally demands that the actor possess the intent to commit a crime inside at the moment of entry.
Yes. If police later obtain the same evidence through a genuinely independent source such as a warrant based on information unrelated to the illegal entry, the evidence remains admissible.
No. An unlawful entry taints evidence directly obtained from it, but a subsequent valid warrant or independent probable cause can support continued detention and the admission of separately acquired evidence.
Entering a structure, vehicle, or enclosure where the actor plans to commit the target crime satisfies the substantial-step requirement under attempt statutes modeled on the Model Penal Code.
Since the late 19th century the United States has restricted immigration into this country. Unsanctioned entry is a crime and those who enter unlawfully are subject to deportation, yet a substantial number of persons have succeeded in unlawfully entering and now live within various States including Texas. In May 1975 the Texas Legislature revised its education laws to withhold state funds from local school districts for the education of children not legally admitted into the United States. The revision also authorized local districts to deny enrollment to such children under Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.031. In September 1977 a class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Smith County who could not establish legal admission. The suit challenged their exclusion from the Tyler Independent School District schools, and the State of Texas intervened as a defendant. After certifying a class of all undocumented school-age children of Mexican origin in the district, the court held an extensive hearing in December 1977. It found that the statute had neither the purpose nor effect of keeping illegal aliens out of Texas, that enrollment increases stemmed primarily from legal residents, and that barring undocumented children would save money but would not necessarily improve education quality. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the injunction. During 1978 and 1979 additional suits were filed in other Texas districts. The Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation consolidated them in the Southern District of Texas. After a hearing the district court held the statute violated equal protection, the Court of Appeals summarily affirmed, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and consolidated the cases.
View caseArizona enacts a statute making it a state crime for an alien to be present after an unlawful entry. Federal officers challenge the law as preempted by national immigration authority.
In 2010, the State of Arizona enacted the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, commonly known as S. B. 1070. The statute's stated purpose is to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States. Arizona officials described the law as establishing a policy of attrition through enforcement. S. B. 1070 contains four provisions that became the focus of litigation. Section 3 makes it a state misdemeanor to willfully fail to complete or carry an alien registration document in violation of federal law. Section 5(C) makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in Arizona. Section 6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States. Section 2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make reasonable efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person's immigration status with the Federal Government. The United States filed suit against Arizona in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, seeking to enjoin enforcement of these provisions. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the four provisions from taking effect. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction in 2011. Arizona experiences significant effects from unlawful immigration. Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in the State each year, and unauthorized aliens are estimated to comprise almost six percent of the population. In Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, unauthorized aliens are reported to account for a disproportionate share of serious crime. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
View case1 common questions
No. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a state from denying undocumented children a free public education solely because their parents entered unlawfully. Cost savings alone do not justify the denial.
…entitled to special solicitude under the Equal Protection Clause because they lack "control" over or "responsibility" for their unlawful entry into this country. Ante , at 220, 223-224. Similarly, the Court appears to take the position that § 21.031 is presumptively "irrational" because it has the effect of imposing "penalties"…