Seminole County sheriff's office tells Judiciary committee anti‑squatting law is working, suggests technical fixes

Presenters from the Seminole County Sheriff's Office told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the anti‑squatting legislation enacted last session has helped deputies remove unauthorized occupants in a range of situations but requires technical fixes to reduce legal uncertainty.

Bob Cortez, senior administrator for government and community affairs at the Seminole County Sheriff's Office, said the law simplified what had been a lengthy civil process: owners can file a complaint with the sheriff and, if statutory conditions are met, request removal of an unauthorized occupant. Cortez noted the change also created criminal penalties targeting people who advertise or facilitate squatting.

Manuel Guarch, chief counsel for the Seminole County Sheriff's Office, described three Seminole County cases that he said illustrate how the law functions in practice: a "lying landlord" who falsely claimed an occupant had no relationship with the owner (the landlord was arrested for making a false report to law enforcement under Florida Statute 837.051(a), according to Guarch); a case involving individuals who occupied a property for about two years and presented a fake lease, whom deputies treated as possible victims; and a recent, more clear‑cut instance in which a property management company discovered occupants who could not show a legitimate lease and were removed after an affidavit and posting.

Guarch told the committee the statute includes useful tools but creates two practical issues for law enforcement. First, he said the affidavit form in the law functions as implied consent to entry and the sheriff's office would prefer explicit statutory language allowing deputies to enter and use reasonable force at the owner's request and relieve law enforcement of liability for property damage caused doing so. Second, he said the statute currently references perjury under section 837.02, but case law and statutory definitions make it difficult to treat those affidavits as statements made in an "official proceeding." That mismatch, Guarch said, forces deputies to rely on the misdemeanor offense for false statements to law enforcement rather than a felony perjury charge where the legislature appears to have intended more serious penalties.

Cortez and Guarch said the office has used the statute to remove occupants in circumstances where advertisements on social media and classified sites had been used to exploit vacant properties. Cortez said the statute also allows deputies to treat some occupants as victims when evidence indicates they were duped.

During Q&A, Senator Segley described a Pinellas County incident in which people moved into a long‑vacant property and then left after a sheriff's response; she said anecdotes like that illustrate the real‑world problem the law seeks to address. Committee members asked whether squatters tended to be groups or individuals; Guarch replied they often are groups that use fake leases or false documents.

Guarch closed by recommending the legislature consider two technical revisions: explicit statutory consent language to permit entry and force at an owner's request and a statutory fix so that false statements in the affidavit are punished under a provision that matches the legislature's intended severity.

There was no committee vote on statutory changes during the presentation; the session was a briefing and discussion with senators and county presenters.

Key statutes and terms discussed in the presentation included the enacted anti‑squatting statute (referred to in the hearing as House Bill 621 / Senate Bill 888), Florida Statute 837.051(a) (false reports to law enforcement), and Florida Statute 837.02 (perjury in official proceedings).