THEFT & PROPERTY LAW — CALIFORNIA
Trespassing Laws in California — PC §602
Trespassing under PC §602 covers entering or remaining on another person's property without permission. Most trespassing is a misdemeanor but aggravated forms can be charged as felonies. Numerous specific subsections cover different types of trespass.
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
On This Page
Jump to a Section
Quick Reference
Trespassing California — At a Glance
- Law / Code
- PC §602
- Classification
- Infraction / Misdemeanor / Felony
- Maximum Penalty
- $75 fine (infraction) / up to 6 months jail (misdemeanor) / felony in aggravated cases
- Probation Eligible
- Yes for misdemeanor
- Strike Offense
- No
What Is Trespassing California Under California Law?
Legal Framework. Trespass under Penal Code section 602 is not a single, uniform offense. Section 602 contains many separately defined misdemeanor trespasses, generally involving entering land, buildings, or other property without the owner’s consent, or refusing to leave after a lawful request. The prosecution must prove the particular subsection charged, including its required conduct and mental state. For example, PC §602(m) addresses entering and occupying real property or structures without consent, while PC §602(o) addresses refusing or failing to leave private property after being asked by the owner, the owner’s agent, or a peace officer acting at the owner’s request. Mere presence, a mistaken belief in permission, or an unclear demand to leave may not establish every statutory element.
The Prosecution's Burden. Most violations of PC §602 are misdemeanors. Under PC §602, the usual punishment is up to six months in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both, although sentencing depends on the charged subdivision and the circumstances. Some conduct commonly described as trespass is prosecuted under more specific statutes with different consequences. PC §602.5 concerns entering or remaining in a noncommercial dwelling house or apartment without consent; subdivision (b) is generally a misdemeanor, but PC §602.5(c) can be a wobbler when a person enters an inhabited dwelling with intent to interfere with or obstruct the occupant’s right to quiet enjoyment. PC §601, aggravated trespass, is also a wobbler and can carry substantially greater exposure.
Potential Consequences. California prosecutors often charge trespass alongside allegations such as vandalism under PC §594, burglary under PC §459, resisting an officer under PC §148(a)(1), or theft offenses where the alleged entry was part of a larger incident. The distinction is important. Burglary requires entry into a listed structure with intent to commit theft or any felony; trespass does not. A person can commit trespass without intending to steal, damage property, or confront anyone. Conversely, an unlawful entry does not automatically prove burglary. Housing-related cases also require careful statutory analysis: a tenant, former tenant, guest, co-owner, or person with a colorable claim of access may have defenses that are unavailable to a stranger. The precise location, notices given, relationship to the property, and reason for entry drive the defense.
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends Trespassing California Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. attacks the elements of PC §602 and drives outcomes that avoid conviction where possible.
No Consent Element or Implied Permission
Many PC §602 allegations turn on whether entry or continued presence was actually without consent. Permission can be express, but it can also arise from prior access, a standing invitation, business practices, shared use arrangements, or conduct that reasonably communicated permission. A guest who had not been clearly told access was revoked is not in the same position as a stranger who bypassed a locked gate. For a charge under PC §602(o), the identity and authority of the person demanding departure also matter. We examine texts, calls, surveillance, gate records, witness accounts, leases, and prior dealings to determine whether the prosecution can prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.
U.S. Const. amend. IV
No Valid Demand to Leave
Several trespass theories require proof that the accused refused or failed to leave after a qualifying request. Under PC §602(o), the request must come from the owner, the owner’s agent, or a peace officer acting at the owner’s request. The words used, the timing of the request, whether the defendant heard it, and whether a reasonable opportunity to comply existed can be central issues. A vague argument, an instruction from someone with no demonstrated authority, or a disputed claim that a request was given does not necessarily satisfy the statute. Body-worn camera footage, dispatch recordings, security video, and independent witnesses can test an allegation that the defendant knowingly refused a lawful direction to leave.
17 CCR §1219.3
Good-Faith Belief in a Right to Enter
A genuine, reasonable or unreasonable mistake about permission can negate the knowledge or intent required by the particular trespass provision. This defense is especially relevant in disputes involving former partners, family homes, shared businesses, rental units, property boundaries, storage spaces, and informal arrangements. The defense is not a license to ignore a clear revocation of access, but the prosecution still must establish the required mental state at the time of entry or continued presence. We develop objective evidence supporting the person’s belief: keys, prior access codes, mail, utility records, communications, ownership documents, lease history, and witnesses familiar with the parties’ arrangements. A civil dispute over access should not be converted automatically into a criminal trespass conviction.
NHTSA SFST
Challenge an Aggravated Trespass Theory
When prosecutors pursue PC §601 or felony-capable PC §602.5(c), the additional statutory elements require focused scrutiny. Aggravated trespass under PC §601 requires, among other things, a credible threat of serious bodily harm made within 30 days and subsequent entry onto the threatened person’s residence or workplace with intent to carry out the threat; proof of an unwanted visit alone is insufficient. PC §602.5(c) requires entry into an inhabited dwelling with intent to interfere with or obstruct the occupant’s right to quiet enjoyment. We challenge the alleged threat, timing, identification, residence or workplace status, intent at entry, and evidence that the conduct was meant to interfere with quiet enjoyment rather than merely reflect a disputed access issue.
VC §23152
Suppress an Unlawful Detention or Search
Trespass cases often begin with a security detention or police contact on private property. Evidence obtained after an unlawful detention, arrest, or search may be excluded through a motion under PC §1538.5. Officers need reasonable suspicion that a crime is occurring to detain a person, and a search generally requires a warrant, valid consent, or another recognized exception. A property owner’s request for police assistance does not eliminate constitutional limits. We review body-camera footage, radio traffic, reports, property signage, and the sequence of events to determine whether officers had a factual basis to stop the accused, whether any consent was voluntary, and whether statements or recovered property are suppressible.
17 CCR §1219.1
Resolve a Low-Level Case Without a Conviction
Where the facts support a minor misdemeanor trespass but trial risk is not justified, the defense can seek a disposition tailored to the underlying conflict. Depending on eligibility and the court’s approval, options may include judicial diversion under PC §1001.95, informal resolution through the prosecutor, a stay-away condition, or proof that the defendant has ended contact with the location. In Los Angeles County, the charging deputy and the assigned court can differ in their approach, making early presentation of mitigating evidence important. We emphasize the absence of damage, theft, threats, or violence; lack of prior history; mistaken access; and concrete steps showing the issue will not recur. The objective is to avoid a conviction and unnecessary collateral consequences whenever the law and facts permit.
VC §23103.5
Constitutional Sources: Fourth Amendment — U.S. Constitution
Questions
Frequently Asked — Trespassing California
What is the punishment for trespassing under PC §602 in California?
Most violations of Penal Code section 602 are misdemeanors. The general punishment stated in PC §602 is up to six months in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The actual exposure depends on the specific subsection alleged, the facts, and any other charges filed with the trespass allegation. A judge may impose probation conditions such as a stay-away order, community service, restitution for actual damage, or counseling where appropriate. Some related offenses are more serious. Aggravated trespass under PC §601 is a wobbler, meaning it may be charged as a misdemeanor or felony. Trespass into an inhabited dwelling with intent to interfere with quiet enjoyment under PC §602.5(c) is also a wobbler. A citation or misdemeanor complaint should be reviewed for the exact subdivision, not just the word “trespass.”
Can I be guilty of trespass if I used to live there or had a key?
Possibly, but prior residence, possession of a key, or a history of access can create substantial factual and legal defenses. The prosecution must prove the elements of the particular statute charged, including lack of consent and, in many cases, knowledge that permission had been withdrawn or a refusal to leave after a proper request. A former tenant, former partner, family member, co-owner, or long-term guest may reasonably believe access remained authorized, especially where the parties had informal arrangements or conflicting communications. That belief can undermine the required criminal intent. The analysis changes if there was a clearly communicated revocation of access, a protective order, an eviction-related restriction, or an explicit request to leave that was ignored. Lease records, keys, messages, mail, and witness testimony can all be important.
Is trespassing the same thing as burglary in California?
No. Trespass and burglary are separate offenses with different elements. Trespass under PC §602 generally concerns unauthorized entry or remaining on property, often after a request to leave. Burglary under PC §459 requires entering a specified structure, including a house, room, apartment, shop, or other listed building, with intent at the time of entry to commit theft or any felony. The prosecution does not have to prove forced entry for burglary, but it does have to prove the required criminal intent at entry. A person who enters property without permission but without an intent to steal or commit a felony may face a trespass allegation rather than burglary. Conversely, an invitation or unlocked door does not defeat burglary if the prosecution can prove the person entered with the required intent. Charging documents and evidence of intent must be analyzed separately.
Do “No Trespassing” signs have to be posted for a PC §602 case?
Not always. Whether signs, fencing, notices, or a personal warning are required depends on the specific PC §602 subdivision the prosecutor selected. Some trespass provisions focus on entering or occupying property without consent; others focus on refusal to leave after a request from the owner, an authorized agent, or a peace officer acting at the owner’s request. Signage can be powerful evidence that a person knew entry was unauthorized, but the absence of a sign does not automatically defeat every trespass charge. It may, however, support a defense based on lack of notice, implied permission, an ambiguous boundary, or a good-faith mistake. The prosecution must prove the actual statutory elements, not simply show that someone was on property owned by another person.
Can a trespassing charge be dismissed or diverted in Los Angeles County?
A dismissal, reduction, or diversion-based resolution may be available, but it depends on the facts, record, charged statute, and the assigned prosecutor and court. For eligible misdemeanor cases, judicial diversion under PC §1001.95 may allow a court to postpone prosecution while the defendant completes conditions. If the court later finds the defendant performed satisfactorily, it may dismiss the case. A defense attorney can also seek a prefiling or pretrial resolution by presenting evidence that there was permission, a mistake about access, no valid request to leave, no damage, and no continuing safety concern. In Los Angeles County, early preservation of LAPD or LASD body-camera footage, security video, dispatch records, and communications with the complainant can materially affect the result. For case-specific advice, Rubin Law, P.C. can be reached at (213) 723-2337.
Will a trespassing conviction affect my job, immigration status, or gun rights?
A misdemeanor trespass conviction can still appear on background checks and may affect employment, professional licensing, housing applications, or positions requiring access to private property or security clearance. The consequences are more serious if the facts involve an alleged threat, entry into a residence, damage, theft, a protective-order violation, or a felony filing under PC §601 or PC §602.5(c). Immigration consequences are highly fact-specific: trespass is not categorically the same as a theft or violence offense, but the exact conviction statute, factual record, sentence, and any additional counts matter. A standard PC §602 misdemeanor ordinarily does not itself create a firearms prohibition, but felony convictions and qualifying protective orders can. A noncitizen or a person with licensing concerns should obtain advice before accepting a plea, including a plea described as “just trespassing.”
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Charged with Trespassing California? Call Rubin Law Now.
Daniel S. Rubin defends clients facing theft & property charges throughout Los Angeles County. Your first consultation is free and confidential.