Right of Entry

[LS_8750]

I've always interpreted ROE to require some relation to boundaries. These boundaries may include unwritten rights, such as drainage courses or other similar circumstances, or they may include the limits of accidents, or landslides, or floods, etc.

I would not extend ROE to civil engineers. If so, why don't we just pack up and go home?

On the other hand, when one is performing working under FEMA, floodplain delineation surveys, etc., the Federal Government has a right of entry clause somewhere that is out of my reach currently.

[dmi]

from dictionary .com

conjunction


1.

(used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover:

If one reads the section in view of the definition of "AND", then it is likely that "and perform surveys" is meant to include activities "in addition to" the activities previously enumerated.

[LS_8750]

Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.

Practicable:

(Of a thing) reasonably capable of being accomplished; feasible.


In truth, we don't know when we will need to enter the property of others than that of our client's. I'm sure that we can all agree that we generally follow the path of least resistance, cutting line sucks and it takes a lot of time. Enter ROE. "Oh, based on unforeseen circumstances it was necessary (easier) to enter the property of the neighbor to conduct the survey, and so prior notification was not "practicable".

Neighbors in screaming matches like that word "practicable". I don't.

[LS_8750]

Looky here.
Ten years later and here we are.....

I have always considered ROE to be rather sacred. Not one to barge onto folks' property to gather a few topo shots and have lunch on their porch.... AND TO PERFORM SURVEYS.

The subject came up recently, which brought me to reach out to a couple of our esteemed brethren and return to this thread and the LSACTS white paper.

In light of all the drone activity over the past several years the whole AND TO PERFORM SURVEYS component makes me feel a little more cozy.

Are there land surveyors out there abusing ROE? Are engineers or others abusing ROE?

Just wondering.....

[ekparian]

I had an issue a few years ago when the City of San Jose Police Officers told my clients neighbor that they could remove the property corner i set in their concrete. i came to this forum and expressed my frustration. Ric Moore replied to me and got involved. he spoke to the Chief of Police and an Internal Investigation was conducted. I was allowed to return to the property with Police supervision and the Police had to inform the neighbors that they were not to remove the monument the we re-set. This is not directly related to Rights of entry but on our pamphlet, it specifically addresses our right to trespass in the civil code (that is what the officer was talking about when he said it is up to a judge) but is also listed in the penal code which the office has to uphold.
i was given a couple of different handouts during all of this and am including links to download them from dropbox.

The first is is a training bulletin from the Novato Police Department:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ya6zpepp ... ckvvz&dl=0

The second is from NSPS called Right of Entry Committee Report: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b64yb65u ... zi8em&dl=0

As far as accessing a neighboring property for Topo, i am not positive we have the right. i did access a neighbors property last year. he didnt answer the door but we left my partners card on his porch. he later came outside and demanded we get off his property. He had a very foul mouth and was belligerent was is my opinion he was drunk. we complied and got off his property. Thankfully in this case the properties were separated by a chain link fence so we finished our topographic survey using the non-prism function. We later heard from the board because he filed a complaint against my partners license. we had to explain ourselves to the Board and in this case, there were reports of water flowing from one property to the next causing damage. we explained that the County wanted a topographic map on both sides of the land to demonstrate water flow. The Board found that we did not violate any laws and the complaint was dropped.