HB309 creates a new expedited process for property owners to remove people who are unlawfully occupying a residential dwelling, often described as a “squatter” removal procedure. Under the bill, a property owner or authorized agent may go to a local police station or sheriff’s office and submit a verified complaint requesting immediate removal, but only if several conditions are met: the property is a residential dwelling, the occupants entered without permission, the property was not open to the public, the owner has already directed the occupants to leave, the occupants are not tenants under a rental agreement, are not immediate family members, are not co-owners, and there is no pending litigation involving the property.
If the complaint is verified, a peace officer must serve a notice to immediately vacate, identify the occupants if possible, and put the owner back into actual possession of the property. The officer may serve notice by hand delivery or by posting it on the property. The bill also allows the owner to request police “stand by” assistance while changing locks and removing the occupants’ personal property, and it authorizes a reasonable fee for that service. The bill states that owners are not liable for loss or damage to the occupants’ property unless the removal was wrongful, and it preserves law enforcement authority to arrest for trespass, vandalism, theft, or other crimes.
HB309 also amends the criminal damage to property statute to clarify the felony threshold language, changing the prior reference from a fourth-degree felony to a second-degree felony when damage exceeds $1,000. In addition, it creates a new civil cause of action in ejectment for a person who was removed under the bill’s procedure and claims the removal was improper. A wrongfully removed person may seek restoration of possession, actual costs and damages, and statutory damages, and the court must advance the case on the calendar.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new law-enforcement-assisted eviction/removal pathway outside the ordinary landlord-tenant process, while also creating remedies and penalties to deter misuse. It affects property owners, alleged unlawful occupants, police and sheriff’s offices, and courts. It also intersects with existing trespass law and the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act by expressly excluding tenants, holdover tenants, family members, co-owners, and properties involved in pending litigation.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or vote history to gauge sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to address property-owner concerns about unauthorized occupancy and to provide a faster remedy than traditional eviction proceedings, while also including safeguards and liability for wrongful use. The main likely point of contention is the balance between property rights and due process: supporters would likely favor the expedited removal process, while critics may worry about mistaken removals, police involvement in civil possession disputes, and potential conflicts with tenant protections or ownership disputes.
HB309 would add new sections to Chapter 31 NMSA 1978 establishing a police-assisted process for removing unlawful occupants from residential real property, and a new ejectment remedy in Chapter 42 for people wrongfully removed. It also amends Section 30-15-1 NMSA 1978 on criminal damage to property by updating the felony classification language for damage over $1,000. The bill would affect property owners, authorized agents, peace officers, alleged unlawful occupants, and courts by creating a new complaint form, notice procedure, fee authorization for standby assistance, and civil liability for wrongful use of the process.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so the public or legislative sentiment cannot be directly measured from the available history. The bill’s structure suggests support from property-rights advocates and those seeking a faster remedy against unauthorized occupants, while also reflecting an effort to address concerns about abuse by requiring sworn statements and creating a cause of action for wrongful removal. Overall, the text indicates a generally pro-property-owner approach with built-in safeguards.
The central point of contention is likely whether the bill provides an appropriate expedited remedy for property owners or whether it risks bypassing normal eviction and court procedures. Supporters would emphasize the need to quickly remove trespassers from residential property and the bill’s limits excluding tenants, family members, co-owners, and pending disputes. Opponents would likely focus on due-process concerns, the possibility of wrongful removal, the role of police in resolving possession disputes, and the risk that vulnerable occupants could be displaced without full judicial review.