What Does a "No Soliciting" Sign Mean, Legally?
No Soliciting signs are meant to prohibit door-to-door solicitations, salespeople and sales teams from entering private property to attempt to sell products or services. The prohibition against solicitation is established by Nevada law. When a property owner places a No Soliciting sign, salespeople must refrain from entering their property to seek business unless the individual property owner gives their permission.
There are a couple of exceptions when a person can enter private property to attempt solicitation if the property owner has placed a No Soliciting sign. If you are doing work for the homeowner or property owner, such as mowing their lawn, raking their leaves, snow blowing their sidewalk or other activities that are generally free services, it is acceptable to be on their property even if they have a sign posted . Another exception would be if you are seeking business and you have been given permission to be on their property or if the property is open to the public, such as a commercial business where people can come into the store to shop.
Violations of No Soliciting signs may not be pursued in criminal court. Not unless the salespeople or sales teams ignore the sign and cause a disturbance, cause property damage,, generally cause a public nuisance or trespass on private property. If this happens, the salespeople may be charged with harassment, nuisance or trespassing.
While no soliciting signs might seem to be a nuisance, they do legally limit people from entering the private property without the permission of the property owner or tenant. In Nevada, it is illegal for salespeople to ignore a No Soliciting sign.
Several Nevada No Soliciting Sign Laws At-A-Glance
No specific state statutes in Nevada govern no soliciting signs. However, some county and local ordinances may address the issue. For example, in Washoe County, Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 244.050(1) allows counties to regulate streets, sidewalks, and parks. Local governments may interpret this to permit regulated areas to be gated or sign posted with no soliciting signs. In Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, there is a no canvassing and no soliciting policy which requires citizens wishing to canvass to obtain a permit. Clark County Code § 10.62.010 states: It is unlawful for any person to conduct canvassing of or in any residential neighborhood or residential subdivision which has been designated a "no canvassing" area. For purposes of this chapter, the term "canvassing" is defined as including but not limited to the distribution of commercial handbills and door-to-door solicitation, sales or distribution of books, periodicals, photographs, newspapers, merchandise, samples, personal services or subscriptions. Some subdivisions may also use private road signage with a no soliciting message. These private roads are usually gated and the meaning of third party requests may not be as clear. Nevada Revised Statutes refers to gated and otherwise private streets or roads in various issues including voter registration. The Nevada Division of Vehicle Licensing also has regulation procedures for issuing licenses to operate a business which requires applicants to complete Voter Registration Form under NRS 293.485.
How Are "No Soliciting" Signs Enforced?
The enforcement of "No Soliciting" and "No Trespassing" signs in Nevada is typically the responsibility of local law enforcement agencies. When a person is approached by a solicitor at their home after placing these signs (or after asking the solicitor to leave or not enter private property), these signs may give the resident a basis for refusing to talk or deal with the individual. If approached, individuals can call the police and explain that there are "No Soliciting" or "No Trespassing" signs posted, and ask law enforcement to assist in enforcing the property owner’s rights. If an individual enters a property with "No Trespassing" or ‘No Soliciting" signs posted when asked to leave, and especially after warned that entry was forbidden, a solicitor can be charged with the crime of trespassing. Under Nevada Revised Statutes 207.200, "trespass" includes being upon the property of another and entering or remaining upon the property after a reasonable request to leave is posted. NRS 207.200 makes this offense a misdemeanor, but it can become a gross misdemeanor (up to one year in prison and/or $2,000 fine) for certain repeat offenders. In addition, trespassing may be a crime punishable by civil damages. NRS 41.134 provides that a person who commits the crime may be liable to the property owner for a fine up to $500 and reasonable attorney’s fees. In addition, a trespassing offense may provide a basis for an action in tort. Significantly, even if the offense was a misdemeanor, it has no statute of limitations, which means it can be prosecuted even many years later. Thus, not only is there a risk of substantial fines, and imprisonment, but the offense of trespass can be prosecuted even after the conduct in question.
Restrictions Against Soliciting Are Not Absolute
One exception to no soliciting signage occurs when no such sign is on display. If one occurs without a no solicitor sign posted, nonresidents may be able to solicit to people at a home that an owner of the property owns. As found in Nevada statues 207.200, and 207.210, nonresidents, unless otherwise allowed, must go through magistrate or other authorities to receive a license beforehand. A solicitation trespass occurs if the invitation to solicit is rejected and the person does so anyway. Any solicitation of time outside the posted no solicitation hours can also result in a trespass. There exists the assumption that the person who is trespassing knows or should have known the correct hours to be present. People who are soliciting to specific , known individuals, such as close friends and family members on an invitation list or previously known residents, are not breaking the law even if a person has the no soliciting sign outside of the home they are visiting. Also, people are allowed to solicit to persons and businesses that have them on their "do not call" list.
Ways to Use "No Soliciting" Signs Effectively
For residents and businesses, using "No Soliciting" signs effectively can help mitigate unwanted solicitations. While the Nevada Revised Statute simplifies and provides some direction, the effectiveness of the signs often comes down to their visual appeal and strict enforcement. Below are a few tips:
Location: Where you place your signs can make a difference. While the Nevada law is pretty clear that signs should be placed near entrances or exits, better visibility could be achieved by placing signs at eye-level or in areas where foot traffic is more common.
Visibility: Once you’ve decided on an ideal location, consider the visual appeal of your signs. Paint your sign in colors with enough contrast to the background in order to make it easier to read, and opt for text that is large enough to be legible from a distance.
Respectful Tone: In addition to the overall aesthetics, ensure that the language on your sign is clear, yet respectful. It’s within your rights to post a no soliciting sign, but there’s no need to be overtly aggressive or offensive.
Remember that while you have the right to post such signs, not all businesses honor their requests. If a solicitor continues to solicit after you have posted your signs, you are well within your rights to contact the police or a lawyer if necessary.
Common Issues and Legal Controversies
Despite the apparent clarity provided by no soliciting signs, property owners in Nevada have occasionally found themselves in legal disputes following the posting of no soliciting signs. One common challenge stems from individuals or entities who, despite clear signage, ignore these warnings and turn aggressively to door-to-door solicitation of residents within the private community. For instance, as is the case in many Nevada communities, physically durable and completely lockable gates secure various developments. Neighbors have reported solicitors who shove door stops into the gate latch system to gain access.
Some neighborhood crime watch organizations within private communities have taken it upon themselves to alert law enforcement to such incidents, thus sensitizing area deputies and patrol officers to the potential for repeat violations. Overzealous patrol responses, however, have proven politically problematic. Administrators and managers of gated communities frequently receive complaints following visits from territorial deputies and patrol officers. Given that the gated community in question relies on gate security to ensure no soliciting signs are honored, the deployment of private security simply inflates the cost to the homeowner or property management.
In other cases, individuals who prove particularly persistent with soliciting campaigns continue their efforts despite direct confrontation by homeowners. This may occur in the face of outstanding debt obligations, unpaid dues or significant fine assessments. Solicitation of this type constitutes trespass and may present a potentially harrowing experience for residents who confront the solicitations on their own.
The most significant legal challenges occur when no soliciting signs are ignored and vandalized in the process. Some residents discover a need to post no soliciting signs multiple times before wavering offenders depart the community. In some cases, physically durable and very visible signs are the response of choice for homeowners concerned about security. In other situations more action is needed. Occasionally the County Sheriff’s office has become involved in such matters, marking violation citations and fines to hone in on the problematic individuals or organizations. However, as with other trespassing issues, problems arise when the property owner or management agency receives unwelcome attention from Apartment Enforcement Patrols, often resulting in areas being declared off-limits to patrols and private security.
The challenge remains that while many residents rely on no soliciting signs to keep unwanted salespeople at bay, some guilty parties view these signs as challenges to their right of free speech and movement. This has led to legal disputes between property rights advocates and proponents of personal privacy and space. In the end , the public-private debate of where governmental resources should be expended, and who is responsible for paying these costs, continue to stymie legislative reforms. The role of the private community owner is not defined in law, but through their property deed restrictions, covenants and traditional neighborhood bylaws.
Any homeowner within a gated community can subscribe to home security apps that offer facial recognition and other surveillance monitoring options. While this is a welcome alternative to driving the cost of security services to levels where they are economically prohibitive, such solutions are not universally available to all Nevadans. Every homeowner has a neighbor who may routinely engage in confronting visitors with a determination that is understandably alarming for the visitor. These reactions have created situations in which emergency responders often take hazard control steps, interrupting dangerous activity and, ideally, allowing the homeowner to address what seems like a straightforward situation.
Overwhelmed by the volume of trespass requests they are forced to respond to, the Sheriff’s office and municipal police departments may perceive high volume trespass services as a mechanism of downsizing the constituents whose property rights they are charged to protect in the first place.
Several interesting trespass cases have been launched with respect to a local electric utility company’s referral practices. The company encouraged individuals who owed them money to turn to a collection agency which, in turn, sold debtor listings to third parties such as property managers, apartment managers and self-storage companies. Individuals who owe debts to these companies could find themselves besieged by transfer debt collection agencies and various other economic pressures, including eviction filings.
As time passes, the most productive and ethical utility services may be the ones seeking to terminate delinquent residential accounts, thus avoiding costly engagement with the emergency response team and hundreds of angry homeowners. In noise ordinances, the Sheriff’s office is left to defend mismanaged noise calls, slow responses to such calls and a mishmash of inconsistent noise ordinances that seem to crop up without invitation. As the state of Nevada wrestles with votes on issues of separation of powers and state sovereignty, conflicting interests collide daily.
For every homeowner with a simple solution to these circumstances — namely, to quietly put a stop to the solicitation process without summons or arrest — there are others who struggle with peacekeeper reactions and emergency response reports that can include fines and criminal charges for themselves as residents. Each year several cases with just such a resolution hit the court files, adding to the misunderstandings that sometimes accompany orders of prevention.