2023 Connecticut General Statutes › Title 53a - Penal Code › Chapter 952 - Penal Code: Offenses › Section 53a-107. - Criminal trespass in the first degree: Class A misdemeanor.

(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree when: (1) Knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so, such person enters or remains in a building or any other premises after an order to leave or not to enter personally communicated to such person by the owner of the premises or other authorized person; or (2) such person enters or remains in a building or any other premises in violation of a restraining order issued pursuant to section 46b-15 or a protective order issued pursuant to section 46b-16a, 46b-38c, 54-1k or 54-82r by the Superior Court; or (3) such person enters or remains in a building or any other premises in violation of a foreign order of protection, as defined in section 46b-15a, that has been issued against such person in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person; or (4) knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so, such person enters or remains on public land after an order to leave or not to enter personally communicated to such person by an authorized official of the state or a municipality, as the case may be.
(b) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor.
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 109; P.A. 80-58; P.A. 91-381, S. 2; P.A. 92-260, S. 43; P.A. 95-214, S. 4; P.A. 99-240, S. 5; P.A. 03-98, S. 3; P.A. 05-147, S. 3; 05-234, S. 1; P.A. 14-217, S. 188.)
History: P.A. 80-58 added Subsec. (a)(2) specifying that entering or remaining in building or other premises in violation of a restraining order is criminal trespass in the first degree; P.A. 91-381 amended Subsec. (a) by adding “pursuant to section 46b-15 or a protective order issued pursuant to section 46b-38c” after “issued”; P.A. 92-260 made technical changes in Subsec. (a) by replacing references to “such person” with “he” or “him” as appropriate; P.A. 95-214 amended Subsec. (a)(2) to include a protective order issued pursuant to Sec. 54-1k; P.A. 99-240 amended Subsec. (a)(2) to include a protective order issued pursuant to Sec. 54-82r and to make provisions gender neutral; P.A. 03-98 added Subsec. (a)(3) re entry or remaining in a building or other premises in violation of a foreign order of protection; P.A. 05-147 amended Subsec. (a)(3) to delete the requirement that the foreign order of protection has been issued “after notice and an opportunity to be heard has been provided to such person”; P.A. 05-234 added Subsec. (a)(4) re entry or remaining on public land, effective January 1, 2006; P.A. 14-217 amended Subsec. (a)(2) to add reference to Sec. 46b-16a, effective January 1, 2015.
See Sec. 53a-44a re surcharge on fine for trespass on public land.
Cited. 203 C. 466; Id., 624; 204 C. 441.
Cited. 12 CA 172; 18 CA 303; 19 CA 245; 20 CA 599; 24 CA 195; 35 CA 714; 43 CA 1. Conviction reversed; evidence was insufficient to convict defendant under section. 55 CA 475.
Word “owner” must be given broad meaning so statute serves its legislative purpose to protect any possessor of land from unwanted intrusions; proof of title not essential element. 35 CS 555. Cited. 37 CS 853.
Subsec. (a):
Cited. 216 C. 647; 236 C. 342. A spouse's right or privilege to enter property is not determined solely by the spouse's ownership interest in the property, or by whether the structure can be characterized as the marital home, but rather by whether the spouse had any possessory or occupancy interest in the premises at the time of entry; In general, when the marital relationship is intact and both spouses have a possessory or occupancy interest in a premises, an isolated request to leave the premises during a heated marital argument will not suffice to revoke one spouse's possessory or occupancy interest in the premises vis-à-vis the other. 334 C. 100.
Cited. 11 CA 24; 12 CA 258; 30 CA 45; 35 CA 262; 36 CA 448; judgment reversed, see 236 C. 342. Subdiv. (2): Conviction under this section and Sec. 53a-223(a) did not violate constitutional protection against double jeopardy because legislature intended multiple punishments for offense of trespassing in violation of a protective order. 97 CA 72.