‘Squatter’ bill aims to let police remove unlawful occupants without court order when conditions met; law enforcement warned it may duplicate existing law

Senate Bill 17-26 would create a process allowing Arizona property owners to seek expedited removal of unlawful occupants from residential properties if nine statutory conditions are satisfied. The bill establishes affidavit procedures, a preliminary police investigation and, when the officer determines the statutory conditions are met, authority for removal without a prior court order.

Committee staff summarized the statute and said the law sets criteria including that the occupant is not a tenant and there is no pending litigation involving the owner and occupant. Staff described the intent as a faster remedy for property owners who face prolonged civil litigation when removing unlawful occupants.

At caucus, members and staff described competing views. Law enforcement witnesses told the committee they opposed the bill in committee testimony because they viewed existing criminal trespass statutes as sufficient; staff relayed that testimony to caucus members. Representative Gillette explained why supporters see a need for the change: he recounted repeated examples — including reported online guides — of people occupying homes while owners are away, leaving victims temporarily displaced while civil courts process removals. "When law enforcement gets on scene, it's a he said, she said... law enforcement hands are tied, and they refer to the courts," Gillette said. "You wait in a hotel while somebody's living in your house."

Other members asked practical questions about the on‑the‑spot investigation, the timing of removal, and whether the bill creates a new criminal path; staff said the officer conducts a preliminary investigation (interviewing neighbors and reviewing alleged leases) and, if probable cause exists that the affidavit's conditions are met, can remove the occupant the same day, though officers may choose to continue investigation the next day.

Staff and members noted the bill differs from last year’s squatter legislation in implementation though the topic is similar. Several members urged colleagues to review full testimony and past committee records before floor action. No final caucus vote was recorded.