SB 157 creates a new chapter in the Indiana Code establishing an expedited process for removing “squatters” from private property. The bill defines a squatter as someone occupying another person’s property without a rental agreement, permission, or any other property interest, and who has never had such authorization. It expressly excludes people whose leases have expired, people who may have violated a rental agreement, and invitees.
Under the bill, a property owner may file an affidavit with law enforcement stating that the occupant meets the statutory definition of a squatter. After receiving the affidavit, law enforcement generally must dispatch officers within 48 hours to remove the squatter, though the response may be delayed for public safety reasons. Officers may decline removal only if they find credible evidence that the person has or had lawful authority to occupy the property, or is an invitee. The bill also allows officers to arrest the squatter if there is probable cause for another offense, and it preserves other remedies such as eviction, possession, and emergency possession actions.
Impact
The bill adds IC 32-31-12 as a new chapter on expedited removal of squatters and adds a corresponding immunity provision in IC 34-30-2.1 for law enforcement agencies and officers acting within the scope of the chapter. It creates a new affidavit-based removal procedure, supplements existing landlord-tenant and possession remedies, and authorizes a civil cause of action against an affiant who knowingly makes a materially false statement that leads to wrongful removal. The measure directly affects property owners, law enforcement, alleged squatters, and anyone occupying property without a current or prior legal right to do so.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests broad support for the bill overall, with strong bipartisan approval on third reading in both chambers and near-unanimous approval of the conference committee report. The bill’s caption, “Protection of property rights,” reflects the general policy goal of giving owners a faster tool to address unauthorized occupancy. The only notable early resistance appears to have been a failed Senate amendment, indicating some disagreement over the bill’s details rather than its core purpose.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the speed and scope of police involvement, the risk of wrongful removal, and how the bill distinguishes squatters from tenants or other lawful occupants. Critics may be concerned that an affidavit-driven process could be misused against people with disputed occupancy rights, which is why the bill includes perjury penalties, an officer’s duty to look for credible evidence of lawful occupancy, and a civil remedy for wrongful removal. Supporters, by contrast, appear focused on rapid enforcement and stronger property-rights protections, especially for owners dealing with unauthorized occupants and related public-safety concerns.