An act to add Section 602.15 to the Penal Code, relating to trespassing.
SB 448 creates a new Penal Code section establishing a streamlined process for removing “squatters” from residential property. The bill allows a property owner or authorized agent to serve a written 72-hour demand to vacate, then submit a sworn request to local law enforcement for removal if the occupants do not leave. It defines a squatter as a person who unlawfully enters and remains in a residential property, refuses to leave when asked, or falsely claims a lawful right of possession.
If law enforcement verifies the request, the agency must remove the unauthorized occupants without unreasonable delay and may charge a reasonable fee for processing and conducting the removal. The bill also authorizes law enforcement to stand by while personal property is removed and locks are changed, and it grants immunity for good-faith removals. It further creates criminal penalties for fraudulently causing a removal or fraudulently interfering with one, and it creates a civil cause of action for a person wrongfully removed because of an owner’s fraud or bad faith. The bill expressly states that it applies to squatters only and not to tenants, former tenants in active disputes, holdover tenants, or others with a bona fide claim to tenancy or title.
The bill would affect state law by adding a new trespass-related procedure in the Penal Code and by expanding criminal liability for related fraudulent conduct. It also imposes new duties on local law enforcement agencies, which the bill characterizes as a state-mandated local program, while attempting to limit state reimbursement obligations by allowing agencies to charge fees and by invoking constitutional and statutory reimbursement exceptions. In practical terms, it would give property owners a faster, law-enforcement-based remedy for residential squatting than traditional civil eviction processes.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history is strongly favorable: the bill advanced out of committee unanimously at each recorded step, including 6-0 and 13-0 votes, before being placed on the suspense file in Appropriations. No committee transcript is available here, but the unanimous votes suggest broad agreement on the need to address unlawful residential occupation and to provide a clearer enforcement mechanism for property owners.
The main point of contention inherent in the bill is the risk of misidentifying lawful occupants as squatters. To address that concern, the bill limits its scope to unauthorized persons and excludes tenants, holdover tenants, people in active disputes with owners, and anyone with a bona fide claim of tenancy or title. It also adds penalties for fraudulent removals and a civil remedy for wrongful removal, indicating legislative concern about abuse of the process and the need to balance property-owner remedies with occupant protections.
SB 448 would add Penal Code Section 602.15, creating a new statutory procedure for the notice, verification, and removal of squatters from residential property by local law enforcement. It would also create new crimes for fraudulent interference with the process, authorize fees for law-enforcement processing and removal, provide immunity for good-faith removals, and establish a civil remedy for wrongfully removed occupants. The bill would impose new duties on local agencies and is framed as a state-mandated local program, though it attempts to limit reimbursement exposure.
The available legislative history shows strong support for the bill. It passed committee votes unanimously at each recorded stage, with no recorded opposition in the provided materials. That pattern suggests broad bipartisan agreement on the policy goal of giving property owners a faster remedy against residential squatting, while still preserving some safeguards against misuse.
The central policy concern is the possibility that the new removal process could be used against tenants or other lawful occupants. The bill responds by expressly excluding tenants, former tenants in active disputes, holdover tenants, and people with bona fide claims of tenancy or title, including adverse possession. It also creates penalties for fraudulent requests and interference, plus a civil action for wrongful removal, reflecting concern from lawmakers or stakeholders that expedited law-enforcement removals could otherwise be abused or lead to wrongful evictions.