Rhode Island House Bill H8066

Rhode Island 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/27/26
• Refer: 2/27/26

Caption

RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES -- TRESPASS AND VANDALISM

Summary

H8066 would create a new criminal offense for squatting on residential property and clarify that a squatter is not a tenant under Rhode Island landlord-tenant law. The bill defines a squatter as a person occupying a dwelling unit or other structure without authorization from the property owner, landlord, or tenant, and states that squatting is not the same as a holdover tenancy. A person convicted of squatting would be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the same penalties already provided for willful trespass under § 11-44-26: a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. The bill also amends the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act to exclude squatters from the protections and procedures that apply to tenants. Under the proposal, landlords and property owners would not have to use eviction proceedings to remove squatters and could instead seek police assistance to remove and arrest them for prosecution under the new squatting offense. The bill preserves any other remedies available under state law and does not alter the existing rule that tenants or occupants who remain after termination of a tenancy must be removed through civil proceedings. The bill’s impact on state law is to add a specific statutory definition of squatting, create a separate misdemeanor offense for it, and carve squatters out of the tenant protections in chapter 34-18. It also amends the trespass statute to expressly include squatters within willful trespass language and to reinforce that the criminal penalties for trespass may apply when the domestic violence-related provisions are implicated. In practical terms, the bill would give property owners and landlords a faster law-enforcement-based remedy against unauthorized occupants, while narrowing the circumstances in which civil eviction procedures are required. The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly supportive of property owners and landlords, with the measure framed as a tool to address unauthorized occupancy and streamline removal of squatters. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials. The structure and wording of the bill suggest an intent to respond to concerns about property rights, vacant or occupied homes, and delays in removing unauthorized occupants. The main point of contention likely concerns the boundary between criminal squatting and lawful tenancy, especially for occupants whose status may be disputed or whose tenancy has allegedly ended. The bill attempts to address that issue by expressly preserving civil eviction procedures for tenants and holdover occupants, while excluding only those who are not authorized to occupy the property. Potential concerns would likely come from tenant-rights advocates or housing stakeholders worried about misclassification, due process, or the use of police intervention in what can sometimes be a civil possession dispute.

Impact

The bill would amend Rhode Island’s trespass and landlord-tenant statutes by adding a new criminal offense for squatting, defining “squatter” and “squatting,” and excluding squatters from the protections afforded to tenants under the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. It would authorize property owners and landlords to seek police assistance to remove and arrest squatters, rather than being required to use eviction proceedings, while preserving existing civil and other legal remedies for property owners. It also reinforces that holdover tenants remain subject to civil possession procedures rather than criminal trespass treatment.

Sentiment

The available materials indicate a generally pro-property-owner, anti-squatting policy approach. The bill is written to provide a more direct enforcement mechanism for landlords and owners and to reduce reliance on eviction proceedings for unauthorized occupants. No committee testimony or vote record is included, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s text and caption.

Contention

The likely contention centers on whether the bill could blur the line between a true squatter and a tenant whose lease has expired, been disputed, or been terminated. Supporters would emphasize property rights, quicker removal, and law-enforcement assistance; critics would likely focus on due process, the risk of wrongful arrest, and the possibility that housing disputes could be treated as criminal matters. The bill tries to limit that concern by excluding tenants and holdover occupants from the new squatting provisions, but the practical application of those definitions could still be disputed.