§ 507. Use of force for the protection of property.
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor
believes that such force is immediately necessary:
(1) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass
against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or
movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the
possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
(2) to effect an entry or reentry upon land or to retake tangible movable property, if:
(i) the actor believes that he or the person by whose authority he acts or a person from
whom he or such other person derives title was unlawfully dispossessed of such land
or movable property and is entitled to possession; and
(ii) (A) the force is used immediately or on fresh pursuit after such dispossession; or
(B) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right
to the possession of the property and, in the case of land, the circumstances, as
the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would be an exceptional
hardship to postpone the entry or reentry until a court order is obtained.
(b) Meaning of possession.--For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section:
(1) A person who has parted with the custody of property to another who refuses to restore
it to him is no longer in possession, unless the property is movable and was and still
is located on land in his possession.
(2) A person who has been dispossessed of land does not regain possession thereof merely
by setting foot thereon.
(3) A person who has a license to use or occupy real property is deemed to be in possession
thereof except against the licensor acting under claim of right.
(c) Limitations on justifiable use of force.--
(1) The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests
the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the
property, unless the actor believes that:
(i) such request would be useless;
(ii) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or
(iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought
to be protected before the request can effectively be made.
(2) The use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass is not justifiable under this
section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to
substantial danger of serious bodily injury.
(3) The use of force to prevent an entry or reentry upon land or the recaption of movable
property is not justifiable under this section, although the actor believes that such
reentry or caption is unlawful, if:
(i) the reentry or recaption is made by or on behalf of a person who was actually dispossessed
of the property; and
(ii) it is otherwise justifiable under subsection (a)(2).
(4) (i) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:
(A) there has been an entry into the actor's dwelling;
(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and
(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force
would be adequate to terminate the entry.
(ii) If the conditions of justification provided in subparagraph (i) have not been met,
the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes
that:
(A) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling
otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(B) such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
(d) Use of confinement as protective force.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective
force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement
as soon as he knows that he can do so with safety to the property, unless the person
confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.
(e) Use of device to protect property.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the
purpose of protecting property only if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing
death or serious bodily injury;
(2) the use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is
reasonable under the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be; and
(3) the device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken
to make known to probable intruders the fact that it is used.
(f) Use of force to pass wrongful obstructor.--The use of force to pass a person whom the actor believes to be intentionally or knowingly
and unjustifiably obstructing the actor from going to a place to which he may lawfully
go is justifiable, if:
(1) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right
to obstruct the actor;
(2) the actor is not being obstructed from entry or movement on land which he knows to
be in the possession or custody of the person obstructing him, or in the possession
or custody of another person by whose authority the obstructor acts, unless the circumstances,
as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would not be reasonable
to postpone the entry or movement on such land until a court order is obtained; and
(3) the force used is not greater than it would be justifiable if the person obstructing
the actor were using force against him to prevent his passage.
(Dec. 19, 1980, P.L.1310, No.235, eff. imd.)
1980 Amendment. Act 235 amended subsec. (c).
Cross References. Section 507 is referred to in section 505 of this title; section 8340.2 of Title 42
(Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case:
Com. v. Brockington, P., 230 A.3d 1209, 2020 PA Super 73 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
Com. v. Brockington, P., 230 A.3d 1209, 2020 PA Super 73 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“While Appellant had testified that she had previously heard an individual scratching at her cellar door, there was no testimony that the noises Appellant heard on March 13, 2018 were consistent with the noises of an individual attempting to unlawfully enter her dwelling.…”
Com. v. Brockington, P., 230 A.3d 1209, 2020 PA Super 73 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“While Appellant had testified that she had previously heard an individual scratching at her cellar door, there was no testimony that the noises Appellant heard on March 13, 2018 were consistent with the noises of an individual attempting to unlawfully enter her dwelling.…”
Com. v. Veasley, C., No. 1162 WDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 24, 2015).
· cites it 4× “Appellant requested a jury instruction based on 18 Pa.C.S. § 507, which reads, in relevant part, as follows: (a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property.”
Com. v. Hares, R., No. 1040 MDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 26, 2016).
· cites it 2× “However, before resorting to force a property owner must first request that the trespasser leave, unless: (i) such request would be useless; (ii) it would be dangerous to himself of another person to make the request; or (iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical…”
Com. v. Raspatello, J., No. 1461 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 22, 2017).
· cites it 2× “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 507(a)(1). However, the Code permits use of deadly force in defense of property only if the person seeking the property has entered the actor’s dwelling.”
Com. v. Wilson, K., No. 951 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 30, 2018).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 507. Appellant contends that it was immediately necessary to use force to eject Mr.”
Com. v. Thomas, K., No. 2618 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 24, 2017).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 507(a), (c). Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant statutory and case law, we find the trial court thoroughly addressed and properly disposed of this claim in its opinion.”
Com. v. Gerald, R., No. 2621 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 24, 2017).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 507(a), (c). Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant statutory and case law, we find the trial court thoroughly addressed and properly disposed of this claim in its opinion.”
Com. v. Reeves, K., No. 883 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 31, 2018).
“While Reeves herself did not physically admit the workers onto her property, the two were invited guests until about forty-five minutes into the meeting, when Levanture informed Reeves of the existence of the PFA against her.”
Com. v. Turrisi, P., No. 863 MDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 16, 2019).
“-7- J-S33022-19 defending his property, see 18 Pa.C.S. § 507 (“Use of force for the protection of property”); however, Turrisi presented this defense to the jury, who, based upon their verdict, rejected it.”
Com. v. Brockington, P., No. 2349 EDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 4, 2020).
“While Appellant had testified that she had previously heard an individual scratching at her cellar door, there was no testimony that the noises Appellant heard on March 13, 2018 were consistent with the noises of an individual attempting to unlawfully enter her dwelling.”
Com. v. Millett, D., No. 505 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 10, 2023).
“There, this Court addressed whether a trial court’s instruction to the jury concerning use of force for protection of property pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 507 was adequate and correct as given.”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 507(a): 5 cases
Com. v. Hares, R., No. 1040 MDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 26, 2016).
“However, before resorting to force a property owner must first request that the trespasser leave, unless: (i) such request would be useless; (ii) it would be dangerous to himself of another person to make the request; or (iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical…”
Com. v. Thomas, K., No. 2618 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 24, 2017).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 507(a), (c). Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant statutory and case law, we find the trial court thoroughly addressed and properly disposed of this claim in its opinion.”
Com. v. Gerald, R., No. 2621 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 24, 2017).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 507(a), (c). Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant statutory and case law, we find the trial court thoroughly addressed and properly disposed of this claim in its opinion.”
Com. v. Wilson, K., No. 951 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 30, 2018).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 507. Appellant contends that it was immediately necessary to use force to eject Mr.”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 507(a)(1): 3 cases
Com. v. Raspatello, J., No. 1461 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 22, 2017).
“” 18 Pa.C.S. § 507(a)(1). However, the Code permits use of deadly force in defense of property only if the person seeking the property has entered the actor’s dwelling.”
Com. v. Reeves, K., No. 883 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 31, 2018).
“While Reeves herself did not physically admit the workers onto her property, the two were invited guests until about forty-five minutes into the meeting, when Levanture informed Reeves of the existence of the PFA against her.”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 507(c): 1 case
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 507(c)(1): 1 case
Com. v. Hares, R., No. 1040 MDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 26, 2016).
“However, before resorting to force a property owner must first request that the trespasser leave, unless: (i) such request would be useless; (ii) it would be dangerous to himself of another person to make the request; or (iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical…”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 507(c)(4): 4 cases
Com. v. Brockington, P., 230 A.3d 1209, 2020 PA Super 73 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“While Appellant had testified that she had previously heard an individual scratching at her cellar door, there was no testimony that the noises Appellant heard on March 13, 2018 were consistent with the noises of an individual attempting to unlawfully enter her dwelling.…”
Com. v. Brockington, P., 230 A.3d 1209, 2020 PA Super 73 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“While Appellant had testified that she had previously heard an individual scratching at her cellar door, there was no testimony that the noises Appellant heard on March 13, 2018 were consistent with the noises of an individual attempting to unlawfully enter her dwelling.…”
Com. v. Raspatello, J., No. 1461 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 22, 2017).
“” 18 Pa.C.S. § 507(a)(1). However, the Code permits use of deadly force in defense of property only if the person seeking the property has entered the actor’s dwelling.”
Com. v. Brockington, P., No. 2349 EDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 4, 2020).
“While Appellant had testified that she had previously heard an individual scratching at her cellar door, there was no testimony that the noises Appellant heard on March 13, 2018 were consistent with the noises of an individual attempting to unlawfully enter her dwelling.”
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.