To Establish The No Government Trespassing Act; And To Prohibit Game Warden Trespass Onto Private Land.
Summary
HB1867 would create the “No Government Trespassing Act” in Arkansas law and specifically restrict game wardens from entering private land while performing their duties unless they have a warrant or permission from the owner or lessee. The bill includes limited exceptions allowing entry without permission when there is probable cause to respond to injured or distressed wildlife, an emergency, an accident, or an imminent threat to public safety on the property.
The bill also sets legal consequences for violations. Evidence gathered through an unlawful search or seizure would be inadmissible in administrative or judicial proceedings, and any arrest or property seizure made in violation of the act would be invalid. In addition, game wardens would not have immunity from suit for violating the new subchapter, and affected persons could seek relief under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, including declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Impact
If enacted, HB1867 would add a new subchapter to Arkansas Code Title 15, Chapter 41, creating a specific statutory limit on game warden access to private property. It would affect wildlife enforcement practices, landowners, lessees, and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission or other enforcement personnel acting as game wardens, while also creating new civil liability exposure and evidentiary exclusions for unlawful entries.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee discussion or vote history in the provided materials, so the bill’s sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll calls. Based on the text alone, the bill appears strongly protective of private property rights and skeptical of government entry onto private land, while preserving narrow emergency exceptions for wildlife and public safety concerns.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between private property rights and wildlife-law enforcement authority. Supporters would likely favor the warrant-or-permission requirement as a safeguard against trespass, while opponents may argue it could hinder game wardens’ ability to investigate violations, respond quickly to wildlife emergencies, or protect public safety. The bill’s exclusion of evidence, invalidation of arrests or seizures, and removal of immunity also create significant enforcement and liability concerns.