Guessing knocking on the door and pointing out ordinances was out of the question?
Authority
In this case - in terms of trespassing only - the right as well.
Itâs a right-of-way. Everyone can be there, not just town officials.
Appears so. 
Seems like a picky thing anyway.
We have signs nearly against the road in these parts without interference from âauthoritiesâ.
No. Everybody canât stand in the middle of the road, which is also the middle of the right of way.
It is an authority, not a right. You have been given the authority to be in it and the distance has been determined arbitrarily.
I see an appalling lack of understanding of trespass law and easement law.
If it is a right of way, it is generally NOT private property. A right of way is usually NOT owned by any citizen, by definition it is public property. Even when it is private property, the right of way overrules any private property interest.
A public worker, by definition, can enter a right of way to conduct county or city business and can remove encroachments without notification to the property owner. By definition, he cannot be charged with a trespass.
As for an easement, it depends on the rules of the easement. For example, I have a utility easement that runs through my property, for underground electric, cable, phone, etc. I cannot build a structure over that easement. Nor can I do anything that would impede access to the utilities should the unlikely event occur that access was needed.
More relevant to people that live in older neighborhoods with above ground utilities and older below ground utilities. If a transformer blows, you cannot block access to the repair crews, due to the legal presence of the easement.
The worker was in no way at fault. He was in a right of way and had every right to remove an encroachment to that right of way. The city should recover all workmanâs compensation cost from the homeowner via a tort action. And the homeowner should be charged with assault and battery. An assault and/or a battery does not require that the assailant DIRECTLY assail the victim. Indirect attacks such as this constitute an assault.
4 Likes
Yes but did the worker also remove a Biden sign?! 
If not he is just anti-Trump and deserves what he got!
Irony is ironical.
As crazy as I think it is to line a campaign sign with razor blades, Iâm still trying to figure out how the city worker didnât see them. From the images they seem pretty obvious. Many campaign signs around my area would be in violation too as most are quite close to the shoulder of the roadways.
It was apparently dark, and it is unclear if the picture represents the placement of the razors at the time of the injury.
Canât help but wonder why they singled out that sign. My area is like yours signs close to the road shoulders.
No workers see any need to move or remove them. 
1 Like
What makes you believe they âsingled outâ this particular sign?
Aside from the need for Trump-victimhood, of course.
Yeah gee I wonder⌠
Could it be that it was his job?
Nah too easyâŚ
Could it be that he hates Trump?
Now, we are on to something! 
You seem to have the same comprehension as Alannis Morissette.
Laws likely vary by area. And the razors may be easy to see in sunlight at angles nearly perpendicular to the face of the sign. Other angles and light conditions, likely not so much.
The worker was doing as he was told. Do you think his bossâŚwho gave him that order, should possibly be reprimanded for demanding an unlawful orderâŚor should he/she get special treatment?
I think youâre the lawyer so Iâm not informed enough to say youâre wrong butâŚif I were a betting man, Iâd say the original order is was what was wrong?
It wasnât an âunlawful order,â in any sense of the word.
The only person who broke the law was the owner of the sign.
Post the law and what it was the law breaker did my friend. He was singled outâŚillegally IMO.
