C.F.R. » Title 43 » CHAPTER II—BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER B—LAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (2000) Group 2000—Land Resource Management; General › PART 2800—RIGHTS-OF-WAY UNDER THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT › Subpart 2808—Trespass

43 C.F.R. § 2808.10

What is trespass?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Trespass is using, occupying, developing, or subleasing the public lands or their resources without a required authorization or in a way that is beyond the scope and terms and conditions of your authorization. Trespass is a prohibited act.

(b) Trespass includes acts or omissions causing unnecessary or undue degradation to the public lands or their resources. In determining whether such degradation is occurring, BLM may consider the effects of the activity on resources and land uses outside the area of the activity.

(c) There are two kinds of trespass, willful and non-willful.

(1) Willful trespass is voluntary or conscious trespass and includes trespass committed with criminal or malicious intent. It includes a consistent pattern of actions taken with knowledge, even if those actions are taken in the belief that the conduct is reasonable or legal.

(2) Non-willful trespass is trespass committed by mistake or inadvertence.

[70 FR 21058, Apr. 22, 2005, as amended at 89 FR 25965, Apr. 12, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2005–2020 · leading case: S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735 (10th Cir. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “A revised version of this regulation appears at 43 C.F.R. § 2808.10 (a)-(b) (2005). The only material difference between this regulation and the deleted one is that the revised regulation gives the BLM explicit authority to consider impacts on land outside the area of activity…”
Wilderness Soc'y v. Kane Cnty., 581 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2009). “43 C.F.R. § 2808.10 . Thus, while the immediate effect of the challenged injunction is more confined, the logic of the district court’s position, now affirmed by this panel, wreaks havoc with the transportation system of the West, to the detriment of federal as well as local…”
Sprint Corp. v. Dep't of the Interior, 356 F. Supp. 3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “It concluded that Sprint had violated 43 C.F.R. § 2808.10 , the regulation defining trespass, and 43 C.”
The Wilderness Soc. v. Kane Cnty., Utah, 632 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2009). “43 C.F.R. § 2808.10 . Thus, while the immediate effect of the challenged injunction is more confined, the logic of the district court's position, now affirmed by this panel, wreaks havoc with the transportation system of the West, to the detriment of federal as well as local…”
So. Utah Wilderness v. BLM (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “The court’s view is that the validity and scope of the claimed rights-of-way are key to resolving the 1 A revised version of this regulation appears at 43 C.F.R. § 2808.10 (a)–(b) (2005). The only material difference between this regulation and the deleted one is that the…”
Sprint Corp. v. United States Dep't of Interior (D.D.C. 2018). “It concluded that Sprint had violated 43 C.F.R. § 2808.10 , the regulation defining trespass, and 43 C.”
Blake v. City of Grants Pass (D. Or. 2020). “Homeless people who attempt to live on BLM land are subject to trespass prosecution under 43 C.F R 2808.10, fined $330, and summoned to this Court Likewise, Josephine County does not welcome non-recreational camping in its parks.”
United States v. John Nelson, 592 F. App'x 593 (9th Cir. 2015). “”); 43 C.F.R. § 2808.10 (a) (defining trespass).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.