Protection of property rights.
HB 1189 creates a new Indiana Code article authorizing law enforcement to remove an “unauthorized person” from residential real property when the owner or the owner’s authorized representative follows a specified process. That process requires the owner to appear before law enforcement, provide photo identification, pay a local administrative fee if one is adopted, and sign a detailed affidavit swearing that the property is residential, that the occupants are unauthorized, and that the situation is not actually a landlord-tenant dispute, co-ownership dispute, life-estate issue, or land-contract matter. Law enforcement must then, if the requirements are met, serve notice to vacate and restore possession to the owner, with authority similar to executing a writ of assistance.
The bill also creates a civil cause of action for wrongful removal. A person removed under the new procedure may sue the affiant if the affidavit contains false statements, and a prevailing plaintiff may recover actual damages, triple the fair market monthly rent, court costs, attorney’s fees, and a $25,000 fine payable to the state general fund. The bill further states that law enforcement is not responsible for verifying the truth of the affidavit, and it grants law enforcement and its employees immunity under existing state immunity law while carrying out these duties.
HB 1189 also amends Indiana’s criminal trespass statute to add a new felony provision: a person who enters a dwelling without the owner’s consent or contractual interest and knowingly or intentionally causes more than $10,000 in damage to the dwelling commits a Level 6 felony. The bill retains the existing criminal trespass framework for other forms of unauthorized entry and property interference, while specifically elevating serious damage to a dwelling into felony treatment.
The bill’s overall impact would be to give residential property owners a faster, law-enforcement-based remedy against alleged squatters or other unauthorized occupants, while also imposing significant documentation requirements and penalties for false claims. It would affect property owners, occupants, law enforcement agencies, and courts, and it would add new procedures, fees, recordkeeping requirements, and civil liability rules to Indiana property law.
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded discussion to gauge sentiment or identify specific supporters and opponents. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to strengthen property-rights enforcement, but it also includes safeguards aimed at preventing misuse in landlord-tenant and ownership disputes.
HB 1189 would add a new Article 40 to Title 32 governing the removal of unauthorized persons from residential real property, creating a new law-enforcement procedure, affidavit form, fee authority, recordkeeping obligations, and a civil remedy for wrongful removal. It also amends the criminal trespass statute in IC 35-43-2-2 to make intentional entry into a dwelling that results in more than $10,000 in damage a Level 6 felony. The bill would therefore expand both civil and criminal enforcement tools related to residential property occupation and damage.
No committee testimony, debate transcript, or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment. From the bill text, the measure is framed as a property-rights and anti-squatting bill, suggesting a pro-owner policy goal. At the same time, the detailed affidavit warnings, civil penalties, and exclusions for tenants, co-owners, life tenants, and land-contract parties indicate an effort to address concerns about wrongful removals and misuse.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between giving owners a rapid removal process and protecting occupants with legitimate possessory rights. The bill explicitly excludes landlord-tenant disputes, co-ownership, life estates, and land contracts, which suggests concern that the procedure could otherwise be used in situations better handled through ordinary eviction or civil litigation. Another likely issue is the reliance on an owner-signed affidavit: law enforcement is not required to verify the facts, yet false statements can trigger substantial civil liability and a $25,000 fine. Local law enforcement fee authority and the requirement that officers remain on scene if requested may also raise operational concerns.