SB1563 amends Section 9-102 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, which governs when an action for possession of property may be maintained. The bill adds a new subsection clarifying that nothing in the eviction/article provisions may be construed to prevent law enforcement from enforcing criminal trespass laws under Section 21-3 of the Criminal Code of 1963, or any other criminal code violation, and it expressly preserves police authority to remove persons or property from premises when there is a criminal trespass.
The measure is framed as a civil procedure update, but its practical effect is to reinforce the boundary between landlord-tenant/possession remedies and criminal enforcement. It leaves the existing grounds for possession and eviction intact, including forcible entry, holdover tenancy, foreclosure-related possession, condominium and common-interest-community nonpayment, and related demand-notice procedures. The bill also continues to define and reference condominium and common interest community terms already embedded in the statute.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The bill passed the Senate motion 54-1 and later passed the House third reading unanimously, 106-0, suggesting broad bipartisan support. The absence of committee transcript debate also indicates little recorded public controversy in the available materials.
The main point of contention, to the extent one exists, is the policy balance between eviction-related civil remedies and criminal trespass enforcement. The bill’s caption, “Eviction-Criminal Trespass,” suggests concern that civil possession rules could be read to limit police action in trespass situations. Supporters appear to favor making that authority explicit, while any potential opponents would likely be concerned about overlap between housing disputes and criminal enforcement, though no formal opposition is reflected in the available record.
Impact
SB1563 amends 735 ILCS 5/9-102 in the Code of Civil Procedure. Its legal impact is narrow but important: it adds express statutory language preserving law enforcement authority to enforce criminal trespass laws and remove persons or property when criminal trespass exists, while leaving the rest of the possession/eviction framework unchanged. The bill affects landlords, tenants, condominium associations, common interest community associations, and police agencies by clarifying that civil possession remedies do not displace criminal trespass enforcement.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support and little visible opposition. It advanced with a 54-1 Senate vote and a unanimous 106-0 House third-reading vote. With no committee transcript available, the record suggests the measure was viewed as a clarifying, technical update rather than a major policy dispute.
Contention
The central issue is the relationship between eviction law and criminal trespass enforcement. The bill clarifies that civil possession statutes should not be read to restrict police from acting under criminal trespass law or other criminal code provisions. Any concern would likely come from those wary of expanding police involvement in landlord-tenant disputes or of blurring civil and criminal remedies, but the voting record shows little organized resistance.