The decision talks about a gates-up-or-down analysis, which seems like the seed of a reasonable test: when the gates are up, entering a restricted area isn’t cr

The decision talks about a gates-up-or-down analysis, which seems like the seed of a reasonable test: when the gates are up, entering a restricted area isn’t criminalized; when the gates are down, picking the lock or finding a home in the wall is criminalized. I haven’t read the decision closely enough yet to see how well developed that idea is.