Word of the Month for July 2026: SOLICITATION

Picture it.

You've scrimp and saved and bought your little slice of heaven to call home nestled in the smoky mountains or maybe in somewhere in South Carolina or maybe it was Texas or Montana or...oh, heck, it's my story so South Carolina it is (it's paradise).

Anyway, what you really DON'T want is someone coming to disturb your little slice of heaven so you put up "NO SOLICITATION" or "NO TRESPASSING" signs on your property.

Of course, like mosquitos to a southern BBQ, in less time than you can say Jiminy Cricket you have two dozen solicitors at your door.  Before we get too far into this post, let's define what we're talking about.

SOLICITATION generally refers to the act of requesting, enticing, or attempting to obtain something from someone. The term is heavily context-dependent and falls into three primary categories: daily/business requests, criminal law, and sexual offenses.

In the legal context, solicitation is a specific inchoate crime where someone encourages, commands, or pays another person to commit a crime, even if the crime itself is never ultimately carried out.

• Example: Hiring or asking someone to commit murder, or paying an undercover officer to perform illegal acts.

In the corporate and governmental sectors, a "solicitation" is an official document (such as a Request for Proposal) distributed by an organization seeking bids from vendors to complete a specific project or provide services.

In everyday contexts, solicitation is the act of asking for money, donations, support, or business. 

• Example: Door-to-door fundraising for a local cause, telemarketing calls offering a service, or a charity sending mail asking for a financial donation.

Yep, that's the one.  I mean, how annoying is it when, even after you post all those NO SOLICITATION or NO TRESPASSING signs that you now have a pestiferous wretch who banging on your door disturbing your peace and tranquility!  

Dang but some peoples kids, right?!? 

As it relates to commercial or business related solicitation, what we're looking at is:

• Pest control salesman
• Roofing company
• Solar panel salesperson
• Security system salesperson

Commercial solicitation receives less constitutional protection than say non-Commercial Canvassing which might include:

• Political campaigns
• Religious evangelism
• Petition circulators
• Advocacy groups

These activities receive greater First Amendment protection, although homeowners still have substantial rights to exclude them from their property.

So, does ringing a doorbell normally constitute trespassing?

Short answer, no (generally).

American property law recognizes an "implied license" allowing ordinary visitors to walk up the driveway, approach the front door, knock or ring once, or attempt a brief contact.

This implied invitation applies to:

• Neighbors
• Delivery drivers
• Police conducting a "knock and talk"
• Salespeople
• Religious canvassers

That's why simply walking to a front door is ordinarily not trespassing. 

So, what does a NO SOLICITING sign do?

A properly visible NO SOLICITING sign generally serves as notice that the implied invitation to enter my property for solicitation purposes has been revoked.  Or, in other words, without a NO SOLICITING sign:

• Solicitor walks up
• Rings bell
• Leaves
• Usually lawful

With a sign:

• Solicitor sees sign
• Approaches anyway
• Rings bell attempting to sell something

Now the solicitor has a much weaker claim that he was authorized to enter. Many courts treat this as evidence supporting trespass. 

OK, so what if the solicitor rings repeatedly and refuses to stop?

Yeah, now you're entering a different territory.  See, our hypothetical wasn't "Solicitor rings once."  We moved on to "Person rings the ever living hell out of the doorbell and refuses to stop until someone answers."

That conduct may implicate:

Trespass

In the context of a person ringing a doorbell and refusing to stop, trespass (specifically criminal trespass) occurs when an individual remains on private property after being explicitly asked to leave or when their continued presence causes a resident to fear for their safety.

Because doorbells are designed for public use, walking up to a front door and ringing it once is typically permitted. However, this "implied license" to be on your property is instantly revoked if:

• You verbally tell the person to leave or stop ringing.
• The individual refuses to leave, or continues to ring the bell.
• The property is blocked by clear "No Trespassing" signs or secured gates

Because the person ignored posted notice, now they're staring down both barrels of the law.

Harassment

In some jurisdictions repeated unwanted conduct intended to annoy or alarm can constitute harassment.  In the case where a person repeatedly rings your doorbell and refuses to stop, the legal definition of harassment, as generally applied, occurs when the conduct is a knowing, willful, and repetitive.  It is a  "course of conduct" that serves no legitimate purpose. 

To cross the line from a nuisance into illegal harassment, the behavior must cause a "reasonable person" substantial emotional distress, intimidation, or alarm, and it must actually cause that distress to you.  Note, that's "you" as in your person.  Not the person across the street or around the corner - YOU must be distressed by the activity.

Disorderly Conduct

If the behavior is excessive enough, ringing a doorbell and refusing to stop generally falls under "disturbing the peace."  Legally, this action constitutes disorderly conduct if the person is making unreasonable noise, intentionally causing public or private annoyance, and continues the disruption after being clearly asked to stop.

Local Solicitation Ordinance Violations

Many cities require solicitors to:

• Have permits
• Respect no-soliciting signs
• Leave immediately when told

Violations can lead to citations or fines. 

As far as property rights go, Texas arguable has the strongest laws in place for property owners.

Under TEXAS Penal Code § 30.05, a person commits criminal trespass if they enter or remain on property after receiving notice that entry is forbidden or after being told to leave. The statute specifically recognizes posted signs as valid notice. 

 

The practical effect of Texas law is that if the homeowner says:  "Leave my property" and the solicitor remains, that is where criminal trespass becomes very clear under Texas law.

MINNESOTA generally requires either:

1. Posted notice against entry, or
2. A direct order to leave.

A salesperson who briefly walks to the front door will often argue they were acting under the normal implied license to approach a residence.  However, according to Minnesota statute § 609.605, entering or remaining on property after being told not to enter or after notice that entry is prohibited.

In NEBRASKA, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-521 (Second Degree Criminal Trespass) holds that a person commits 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;

(b) Posting reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or

(c) Fencing or enclosure."

 So, in Nebraska, if it's posted, you hear someone say "LEAVE", or the house is fenced off, stay away.

In NEVADA specifically NRS § 207.200 makes it a misdemeanor to:

"willfully go or remain upon any land or in any building after having been warned ... not to trespass."

The statute also prohibits entering property:  "with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant."

That language becomes interesting when analyzing a solicitor who repeatedly rings a doorbell or refuses to leave.

CONNECTICUT divides criminal trespass into degrees:

• CGS § 53a-107 – Criminal Trespass 1st Degree
• CGS § 53a-108 – Criminal Trespass 2nd Degree
• CGS § 53a-109 – Criminal Trespass 3rd Degree

For a typical homeowner/solicitor situation, § 53a-109 (Criminal Trespass 3rd Degree) is the provision most likely implicated because it covers knowingly entering or remaining on premises without license or privilege.

What if you tell solicitors to leave and they refuse?  This is where trespass becomes strongest.  The classic trespass sequence is:

1. Person enters property

2. Owner tells person:  "Leave my property."

3. Person refuses

At that moment, in most jurisdictions, you've got a much clearer trespass situation and looking at the above noted jurisdictions, many criminal trespass statutes specifically require:

• Notice against entry; OR
• Notice to depart

and refusal to comply. 

So, in addition to have a NO SOLICITATION sign, does posting a NO TRESPASSING sign change things?

Again, short answer: Yes.  Yes, it does.

A NO TRESPASSING sign is generally broader.  Where a NO SOLICITING sign says "Don't come here to sell stuff," a NO TRESPASSING sign says "You don't have permission to enter my property."

The legal significance is usually greater because it addresses entry itself rather than merely the purpose of entry.

Several courts have discussed how "No Trespassing" signs can revoke the implied license normally allowing people to approach a residence. 

For example, in Brown v. State, 152 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), Police violated the Fourth Amendment by entering the curtilage of Brown's home and conducting a "knock-and-talk." 

The court focused on several facts, including the fact that

• The property was enclosed by not one but TWO fences.
• Access to the front door required passing through two gates.
• There were multiple "No Trespassing" signs posted on the outer fence.
• The mailbox was outside the fence.
• The home's curtilage was not visible from outside the fences.
• Brown testified that he did not expect uninvited visitors in the enclosed area.

Even faced with a veritable maze, police were determined to get in despite the repeated warnings against trespassing.  Because the defendant had taken sufficient steps to exclude the public the court found he had established a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

Even if a person hasn't created a fortress like what happened in Brown v. State, by posting both NO TRESPASSING and NO SOLICITING signs, the homeowner is communicating:

1. Entry is not authorized.
2. Solicitation is specifically prohibited.

From an evidentiary standpoint, this makes it much harder for a solicitor to argue "I thought I was welcome."

Whether it increases criminal penalties depends on the applicable state statute or local ordinance.

Usually:

• The signs don't automatically multiply penalties.
• They strengthen proof that notice was given.

The bigger question is whether police will enforce the laws against those perpetrating trespass and solicitation?

The answer is:  Sometimes (yeah, sorry about that).

If the solicitor:

• Knocks once
• Leaves

Most officers are unlikely to make an arrest.

If the solicitor is abusive, and

• Ignores obvious signs
• Refuses to leave
• Returns repeatedly
• Becomes aggressive
• Rings continuously

Police are much more likely to view it as a legitimate trespass complaint.  The exact response depends heavily on state law and local ordinances.

Some key cases that deal with these issues include:

Breard v. City of Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 (1951).  The Court recognized the homeowner's right to be left alone and noted that householders may protect themselves from unwanted solicitation.  The Court stated that "The homeowner has the right to determine whether he shall receive strangers as visitors."

That principle is often cited when discussing unwanted solicitation.

In Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002), the SCOTUS struck down a permit requirement for door-to-door canvassing but specifically recognized that homeowners may protect themselves through no-solicitation signs and by refusing contact.

In Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943), the SCOTUS protected door-to-door advocacy but emphasized that homeowners retain the right to decide whether they want to receive visitors.

I guess the moral to this story is: Don't piss people off by ringing their doorbells over and over and over again.  I mean, come on, life is hard enough.  If someone is going to go through all the trouble to finding their slice of heaven, the least we the people can do is leave them in peace.

Make a note of that.  

 

 

 

Sometimes the Little Guy Wins

Not that you were asking but do you (gentle reader) know why I got into law?

First and foremost, it was to help the little guy.  

More to the point, to help those who didn't know how to help themselves.  

Overly opressive landlords, power hungry employers, school bullies, tyrant police officer - I just wanted to help alieve the pain aflicted by others on people who couldn't didn't know where else to turn - and I did a pretty good job of it until I couldn't and then I found other ways to help.

Like writing a blog about law and legal stuff to help people know where to go to get more information on their problems.

So, it weighs heavy on my mind when I read stories about people being oppressed.  Note that's "oppressed,"  not entitled.  There are a whole lot of people out in public land that think they deserve retribution simply because they breathe oxygen.

Jerry Hartfield is not one of those entitled ones.

See, back in 1976, Eunice Lowe - a white woman - was found murdered and sexually assaulted at a bus station where she had worked in Bay City, near Houston.  Hartfield, a black man from Kansas, was quickly arrested because his fingerprints were on a Dr. Pepper bottle found at the station.  

You know, I'll bet other people's fingerprints were found at the crime scene but were they arrested?!  Bunch of hicks, they were.

Anyway, and shortly after his arrest, Hartfield confessed to the crime.  That's "confessed" as in coerced.  Also how in blazes can a black man with an IQ in the 50's or 60's be said to be able to understand how to confess to anything?  Regardless and consequently, Hartfield was convicted by a jury of his "peers" and was sentenced to death.

On Sept. 17, 1980, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered him retried because prosecutors had improperly dismissed a juror over her reservations about the death penalty.  However, instead of holding a new trial, prosecutors tried (for three years) to convert Hartfield’s death penalty to a life sentence. 

Uh huh.

They failed in that endeavor so, in 1983, the Texas appeals court again ordered a new trial - which never happened. 

In 2006, with the help of a fellow inmate Hartfield filed a writ of Habeas Corpus and seeking a speedy trial which the court(s) rejected.

After years of being bounced around, Harfield turned to the federal system in 2009 to clear up many of the obstacles that were impeding his case.  

However, in 2011, a federal judge rejected Hartfield’s claims because, the judge wrote, Hartfield had failed to exhaust his state remedies.

Are you kidding me?  A comedy of errors this was!

In 2013, 30 years after it had ordered Hartfield to get his new trial, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged at last that Hartfield had been improperly imprisoned for all those years. But it, too, refused to order him released or retried.

Oh, the humanity!

Finally, in August 2015, Hartfield FINALLY got his second trial.  The problem was that two key witnesses who had testified against Hartfield in 1977 had died, so their original testimony was read into the record annnnd, Hartfield's attorney could not be cross-examined.

Other problems that affected this second trial was that none of the physical evidence — the pickaxe that was allegedly used in the murder, a car allegedly used by Hartfield, or DNA from the victim — was still around and jurors could not hear mitigating evidence from Hartfield’s family since most of them had also died. 

Of course none of that mattered because the jury convicted Hartfield again for murder.  However, this time, Hartfield's attorneys were on the ball and appealed this decision for violating Hartfield's right to a speedy trial under the 6th Amendment (note: he had been already incarcerated for the better part of 30 years!).

The Texas appeals court agreed and after 35 years, Jerry Hartfield was released.

But all's well that ends well, right?!

Yeah, no.  All the legal wrangling, all the judicial missteps, all the dinking around with a person's life only goes to show how messed up this legal system of ours is.  

I mean, Jerry Hartfield not only splipped throught the proverbial cracks of the legal system - he was royally screwed out of a third of his life! 

I suspect that if there's a silver lining to all this, it's that Jerry got his day in court and the system finally worked in his favor.  Thirty-five (35) years late but at least the court system finally got its act together.

Good on that. 

Some People are Just Camera Shy

Just the other day, I was looking at police videos and I see one where a cop says, "it's illegal to record police."

Now, why would a cop say such a silly thing?

I mean, unless you're doing something sketchy, why would a police officer be so put off for being recorded?  

Many police officers claim it’s illegal to record them not because the law actually says that but because they just don't want you to.  

In the United States, the general rule is that recording police performing their duties in public is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as long as you don’t interfere with their work.

So, outside of the interfereing with their work thing, what other reason might there be for police being nervous being recorded? 

1. Outdated or incomplete training

For years, the law around recording police was unsettled in some areas. But many federal courts have since ruled that citizens have a constitutional right to record police in public.  Examples include cases from federal appellate courts such as:

• Glik v. Cunniffe (653 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) – clearly recognized the First Amendment right to record police in public.

• Fields v. City of Philadelphia (862 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2017) – affirmed that recording police is protected even if the person filming isn’t directly involved.

• Turner v. Driver (848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017) – recognized the right to record police, though it granted qualified immunity to officers because the law wasn't clearly established earlier.

The problem is that many officers simply haven’t been updated on these rulings (or just don't care thinking they are untouchable).

2. Confusion with wiretapping laws

Police sometimes cite “wiretapping” or “two-party consent” laws in their zeal to prohibit recording them.  The problem is that those laws generally apply to private conversations, not public interactions with police.

For example:

• In ACLU v. Alvarez (679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012), Illinois tried to use its eavesdropping law against people recording police. The court ruled that applying the law this way violated the First Amendment.

The laws surrounding recording is pretty much the same in most states, for example:

In Utah, courts treat recording police in public as protected speech under the First Amendment.

Limits

• Must not interfere with police duties

• Must obey lawful orders to step back

• Cannot trespass or obstruct an investigation

As it relates to recording private conversations, Utah is a one-party consent state under Utah Code §77-23a-4, meaning you can record a conversation if you are a participant in it.

In Texas, you can record police activity visible from public spaces like sidewalks or roads.

Limits

• Cannot interfere with duties (Texas Penal Code §38.15)

• Must remain at a safe distance

• Cannot trespass or break other laws

Audio consent law: Texas is one-party consent under Texas Penal Code §16.02. Meaning you can legally record your own interaction with police.

In California, courts hold that officers have no reasonable expectation of privacy while performing duties in public. The state even passed a “right to record police” law confirming this.

Limits

• Cannot obstruct or delay officers (Ca. Penal Code §148)

• Cannot secretly record private conversations

Audio consent law:  California is two-party consent under Penal Code §632 for confidential communications (meaning that both parties much know that the conversation is being recorded).  Note that this rule does NOT apply to public police encounters because they are not confidential.

In New York, recording police in public is legal and explicitly protected.  New York law recognizes the right to document police activity without interference.

Limits

• Cannot interfere with police operations

• Cannot trespass or obstruct

Audio consent law: New York is one-party consent for recording conversations.

In Wyoming, recording police in public is legal under First Amendment principles.

Limits

• Cannot interfere with police

• Cannot trespass or violate other laws

Audio consent law: Wyoming is one-party consent.

In Indiana, recording police in public is legal if you are in a place you’re allowed to be and not interfering.  Indiana courts have specifically recognized a First Amendment right to record police activity in public.

Limits

• Cannot interfere with law enforcement duties

• Must comply with lawful safety orders

Audio consent law: Indiana is one-party consent.

Generally, if the officer is speaking in public while performing official duties, courts usually consider that NOT private.

3. “Interference” concerns

Recording can become illegal if it actually interferes with police duties. Officers sometimes stretch this idea.  For examples, a recording could legally become interference where the person recording is:

• Standing too close during an arrest

• Blocking movement

• Ignoring lawful safety orders

But simply filming from a reasonable distance is not interference.

4. Control of the scene

From a practical standpoint, officers are trained to control situations. Cameras introduce:

• accountability

• evidence against them

• public scrutiny

Some sketchy officers, therefore, discourage filming even when it’s legal because no one likes to have witnesses around when they're doing something sketchy.

 

 5. Qualified immunity dynamics

Because of the doctrine of Qualified Immunity, officers sometimes face little personal consequence if they incorrectly order someone to stop recording—especially if courts say the law wasn't “clearly established” at the time.

That incentive structure can reinforce bad claims about legality.  As a practical rule in most of the U.S., you can record police if:

• You are in a public place

• You do not interfere

• You do not secretly record private conversations where state law prohibits it

So, to summarize, 

1. Anyone can record a cop on the street in public and 
2. Any police officer who says otherwise is just wrong and is probably just wanting to engage in something sketchy or just wants to feel all self-important.

Yeah, that's my guess. 

 

 

 

Staying In Your Lane Isn't Just About Cars

What do you think about when you're driving out and about?

Me?  I think about crazy pedestrians who jump off the curb and right out in front of me when I'm driving.

Well, at least I do now given that the other day while I was driving along listening to David Bowie sing about Modern Love, a kid on a skateboard and head buried in his cell phone jumped off the curb and into my lane mere seconds in front of my car!!!

No crosswalk and no traffic lights around for at least 200 feet.

Nope, kid just decided that specific location (which just happened to be right in front of my car) was where he was going to cross the street and were it not for my cat-like reflexes (and my brakes), that kid would have been a greasespot on the asphalt.

Yeah, I think about crazy pedestrians a lot, these days. 

The thing is, while most people think that pedestrians always have the right of way, I got to wondering if that is the case in every case?

Turns out pedestrians only have the right of way if they're following the rule of law.

Wait - rule of law?  What's that?!

At its core, the rule of law is the principle that:  Everyone—citizens and government alike—is bound by publicly known, consistently applied laws, enforced through fair procedures.

A few key pieces make that real (often discussed in constitutional law):

• No one is above the law (not even police or officials)

• Laws are clear and predictable so people can follow them

• Equal application—similar situations are treated similarly

• Due process—fair procedures before punishment

• Independent courts to interpret and apply the law

In the United States, these ideas are grounded in the Constitution especially through due process and equal protection principles.

So, what is the rule of law as it applies to pedestrians?

The rule of law doesn’t treat pedestrians as a special class that always “wins.”  Instead, it creates defined rules for everyone using the road—drivers and pedestrians—and holds both accountable.

As this all relates to pedestrians, under state traffic laws,  pedestrians have certain legal duties.  The same body of law that imposes liabilities on drivers also imposes obligationus on pedestrians such as:

• Pedestrians must yield when crossing outside a crosswalk (jaywalking laws)

• Pedestrians must obey traffic and pedestrian signals

• Pedestrians must not step into traffic creating an immediate hazard

This is the rule of law limiting pedestrian behavior.

Notwithstanding the general principle that cars (and other vehicles) must yield to pedestrians, what are some ways in which pedestrians do not have the right of way and should be looking out for vehicles?

1. Crossing outside a crosswalk (“jaywalking”)

Jaywalking is the act of pedestrians crossing a street illegally or unsafely, typcially outside of a designated crosswal, mid-block, or against traffic signals.   It is a traffic violation in many jurisdictions, intended to ensure road safety by directing foot traffic to marked intersections.  

 

For example, Utah's jaywalking statute can be found in Utah Code § 41-6a-1003(1) and states that pedestrians may not cross anywhere other than a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

 

Other similar state statutes include:

• Alabama Code § 32-5A-212 (2024): Pedestrians crossing outside a crosswalk
• § 32-5A-210: Must obey signals
• § 32-5A-211(b): Cannot step into traffic creating an immediate hazard

• Florida Stat. § 316.130: Pedestrians must yield to vehicles outside of a crosswalk, must obey pedestrian signals, and cannot suddenly leave curb into traffic.

• North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 20-174: Pedestrian must yield to vehicles outside of crosswalk and cannot walk into path of close vehicle.  

• Arizona Rev. Stat. § 28-793: Pedestrians must yield to vehicles outside of crosswalk, must use crosswalks when available between intersections, and no diagonal crossing unless allowed.

• Nebraska Rev. Stat. § 60-6,153: Pedestrian must yield right-of-way out of crosswalks, must obey traffic signals, cannot suddenly enter roadway. 

• South Dakota Codified Laws § 32-27-4:  When crossing outside a crosswalk in business/residential areas, must yield to vehicles.

2. Ignoring available crossing infrastructure

Ignoring available crossing infrastructure means a pedestrian chooses not to use a provided safe/legal crossing (like a crosswalk or pedestrian bridge) and instead crosses the road somewhere else.

This usually includes:

• Marked crosswalks (painted lines)

• Unmarked crosswalks at intersections

• Traffic signals / pedestrian signals

• Pedestrian bridges or tunnels

• Designated crossing zones (like school crossings)

For example:  Utah Code § 41-6a-1003(2): A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing is provided must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.

 

Other related state statutes include:

• Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.48: If there’s a designated crossing nearby, you can’t just cross anywhere you want.

• California Vehicle Code § 21955: Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic signals or police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway except in a crosswalk. 

• Washington RCW 46.61.240 & RCW 46.61.235: Pedestrians crossing outside crosswalks must yield to vehicles. Where adjacent intersections have signals, pedestrians must use crosswalks.

3. Crossing against traffic signals

Crossing against traffic signals means that when a pedestrian enters or continues crossing a roadway when the traffic control signal says they should NOT cross the street.  While covered in related sections (e.g., pedestrian signal laws), the general rule is:  Where a pedestrian is crossing on a “Don’t Walk” signal, the pedestrian is violating the law and they have no right of way.

 

Related state statutes include:

 

New York Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1112 states that when the sign says:

• “Walk” → pedestrian may proceed

• Flashing “Don’t Walk” → may finish crossing, but should not start

• Steady “Don’t Walk” → must not enter the roadway

Massachusetts Gen. Laws ch. 89, § 11: Where traffic signals exist, pedestrians may only cross in accordance with them.  Entering on “Don’t Walk” = unlawful crossing.

Indiana Code § 9‑21‑17‑2 notes that:

• Flashing or steady “Walk” → a pedestrian may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal, and vehicles must yield.

• Steady “Don’t Walk” → a pedestrian may not start to cross the roadway in that direction.

• Flashing “Don’t Walk” → a pedestrian may not start to cross; if already crossing on “Walk,” they must proceed to the sidewalk or safety island.

4. Stepping into traffic suddenly (immediate hazard)

Stepping into traffic suddenly (immediate hazard) means a pedestrian leaves a place of safety (like a curb) and enters the roadway so abruptly that a nearby driver cannot reasonably stop or avoid them.  

 

In that situation, the pedestrian is violating the traffic laws and typically must yield the right-of-way because they created a dangerous, unavoidable condition. 

 

Utah Code § 41-6a-1002(1)(c) states that a pedestrian may not suddenly leave a place of safety and enter the path of a vehicle that is too close to stop.  Even in a crosswalk, this can remove right-of-way protection.

 

Related state statutes:

Oregon Revised Statutes § 814.040:  says a pedestrian commits a traffic offense if they:

(a) Suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and move into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard
(b) Fail to yield to vehicles when crossing outside crosswalks
(c) Fail to yield the right-of-way generally

Montana Code Annotated § 61‑8‑502 states:

When signals are not in place, drivers must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, but a pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the operator to yield

Rhode Island General Laws § 31‑18‑3 provides:

Drivers must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks when signals aren’t operating, but no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

5. Crossing where crossing is restricted

“Crossing where crossing is restricted” means a pedestrian enters or crosses a roadway at a location or in a manner that the law specifically prohibits, such as between intersections with traffic signals, on highways, or in areas marked “No Crossing.” Violating these restrictions removes the pedestrian’s right-of-way and can be treated as a traffic violation. 

 

Utah Code § 41-6a-1003(3)–(4): provides that pedestrians are not permitted to cross between signalized intersections except at crosswalks and no diagonal crossing unless allowed by signal

 

Related state statutes include:

Mississippi Code § 63‑3‑1105 states that:

• A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection must yield the right‑of‑way to all vehicles.
• A pedestrian crossing where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead crossing is provided must yield the right‑of‑way to vehicles.
• Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross except in a marked crosswalk. 

Arkansa Code § 27‑51‑1204: provides that between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.  

Michigan Comp. Laws § 257.613:  

• Pedestrians facing traffic control signals may only proceed within a marked or unmarked crosswalk when the signal permits, and cannot legally start crossing outside of that.

General Michigan pedestrian rules (public guidance)

• Pedestrians are expected to use crosswalks at signalized locations and not cross in unsafe, unmarked mid‑block areas when signalized crossings are available.

6. General principle: pedestrians only have "conditional" right of way

Even where pedestrians usually have priority (like crosswalks), the law still limits them and:

• Drivers must yield only when the pedestrian is lawfully in the crosswalk

• That duty disappears if the pedestrian acts unpredictably, violates crossing rules, and creates an immediate hazard

I guess the moral to this story is pedestrians do NOT have the right of way when they:

• 🚫 Jaywalk

• 🚫 Ignore signals

• 🚫 Step into traffic suddenly

• 🚫 Cross where prohibited

• 🚫 Fail to use designated crossings

 

But drivers should still probably try to avoid collisions and can still be partially liable if they run over people in the roadway.

Too bad, that.