(1) A person commits second degree criminal trespass if, knowing that he or she is not licensed or privileged to do so, he or she enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(a) Actual communication to the actor; or
(b) Posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or
(c) Fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders except as otherwise provided in section 28-520.
(2) A person commits second degree criminal trespass if, knowing that he or she is not licensed or privileged to do so, he or she intentionally causes an electronic device, such as an unmanned aircraft, to enter into, upon, or above the property of another, including such property owned by such person and leased or rented to another, with the intent to observe another person without his or her consent in a place of solitude or seclusion.
(3) For purposes of this section, unmanned aircraft means an aircraft, including an aircraft commonly known as a drone, which is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
(4) Second degree criminal trespass is a Class III misdemeanor, except as provided for in subsection (5) of this section.
(5) Second degree criminal trespass is a Class II misdemeanor if the offender defies an order to leave personally communicated to him or her by the owner of the premises or other authorized person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2024 · leading case:
State v. Stanko, 304 Neb. 675 (Neb. 2019).
State v. Stanko, 304 Neb. 675 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 5× “The plain language of “knowing” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-521 (1) (Reissue 2016), in the context of enter- ing any building or occupied structure “knowing that he or she is not licensed or privileged to do so,” imposes a subjective standard focused on the accused’s actual…”
State v. Kalita, 317 Neb. 906 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 3× “He alleged that the county court erred by finding him guilty without sufficient evi- dence and that Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-521 (Cum. Supp. 2022) and 81-2008 (Reissue 2014), along with 272 Neb.”
State v. W.D., 441 N.W.2d 608 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 6× “, committed the crime of second degree criminal trespass, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-521 (l)(c) (Reissue 1985), and, as a result, violated an order of probation entered April 30, 1986.”
State v. Campbell, 620 N.W.2d 750 (Neb. 2001).
· cites it 2× “2000); second degree trespass under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-521 (Reissue 1995); possession of marijuana, less than 1 ounce under Neb.”
State v. Havlat, 385 N.W.2d 436 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-521 (1) (Reissue 1979).”
Saunders v. Mittlieder, 237 N.W.2d 838 (Neb. 1976).
· cites it 2× “der, or violation of any of the terms or conditions of the policy; or (c) the named insured or any operator, either resident in the same household or who customarily operates an automobile insured under the policy, (i) has had his driver’s license suspended or revoked pursuant…”
State v. Miller, 337 N.W.2d 424 (Neb. 1983).
· cites it 2× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-521 (Reissue 1979). “It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under sections 28-520 and 28-521 that: “(1) A building or occupied structure involved in an offense under section 28-520 was abandoned; or “(2) The premises were at the time open to members…”
State v. Meints, 405 N.W.2d 15 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Defendant, David Meints, appeals from an order of the district court for Gage County affirming his conviction and sentence in the county court for Gage County on two counts of criminal trespass in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-521 (Reissue 1985). For the reasons hereafter…”
State v. Blotzer, 195 N.W.2d 199 (Neb. 1972).
“The principal distinction between automobile theft and the lesser offense of taking an automobile for wrongful use (§ 28-521, R. R. S. 1943) is the intent to keep wrongfully which is an element of automobile theft.”
Trimble v. Helwig (D. Neb. 2020).
· cites it 3× “Furthermore, even if Trimble cited Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-521 as a separate claim, it would be dismissed because the statute does not provide a private cause of action.”
State v. King, 281 N.W.2d 226 (Neb. 1979).
“§ 28-521, R. R. S. 1943. The trial court found the defendant guilty of automobile theft and sentenced him to a term of 1 year in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex with credit for time spent in the county jail awaiting trial.”
State v. Morrow, 246 N.W.2d 72 (Neb. 1976).
· cites it 2× “Later, an amended information was filed charging the defendant with wrongful use of the motorcycle, a misdemeanor under section 28-521, R. R. S. 1943. To this charge the defendant pleaded nolo contendere, was found guilty, and sentenced to 4 months in the county jail and fined…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-521(1) — 4 cases
State v. Havlat, 385 N.W.2d 436 (Neb. 1986).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-521 (1) (Reissue 1979).”
State v. Kalita, 317 Neb. 906 (Neb. 2024).
“He alleged that the county court erred by finding him guilty without sufficient evi- dence and that Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-521 (Cum. Supp. 2022) and 81-2008 (Reissue 2014), along with 272 Neb.”
State v. W.D., 441 N.W.2d 608 (Neb. 1989).
“, committed the crime of second degree criminal trespass, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-521 (l)(c) (Reissue 1985), and, as a result, violated an order of probation entered April 30, 1986.”
State v. Stanko, 304 Neb. 675 (Neb. 2019).
“The plain language of “knowing” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-521 (1) (Reissue 2016), in the context of enter- ing any building or occupied structure “knowing that he or she is not licensed or privileged to do so,” imposes a subjective standard focused on the accused’s actual…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-521(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. W.D., 441 N.W.2d 608 (Neb. 1989).
“, committed the crime of second degree criminal trespass, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-521 (l)(c) (Reissue 1985), and, as a result, violated an order of probation entered April 30, 1986.”
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.