Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
You might be right, but I see nothing in the law that makes it clear.
It has "walls and a roof" but is it a "structure"? I would argue that it's not.
The law doesn't say "it has a roof and walls", it's says "STRUCTURE with walls and a roof."
I don't know how a court will define "structure" but the common definitions seem to require that a "structure" is something that is built, in it's entirety.
I could be wrong. The law itself, however, is far from clear. Unless a court says otherwise, I would say that cave where someone added walls and a roof is not a "structure".
It has "walls and a roof" but is it a "structure"? I would argue that it's not.
The law doesn't say "it has a roof and walls", it's says "STRUCTURE with walls and a roof."
I don't know how a court will define "structure" but the common definitions seem to require that a "structure" is something that is built, in it's entirety.
I could be wrong. The law itself, however, is far from clear. Unless a court says otherwise, I would say that cave where someone added walls and a roof is not a "structure".