Committee hears testimony on bill to require no-trespassing signs every 250 feet

Representative Ben Slaw introduced House Bill 4013 and told the committee his bill would require no-trespassing signs to be posted at intervals of no more than 250 feet along a property's boundary.

The bill was discussed at a committee hearing where the Department of Natural Resources' legislative liaison and the department's chief law enforcement officer testified in support, and a representative of the Michigan Realtors registered support by card. No committee vote was taken at the hearing.

Rep. Ben Slaw, the bill's sponsor, said the change responds to a constituent complaint from fall 2022 about unauthorized hunters on private land and conflicting interpretations of the current law. "Although he had a significant number of no trespassing signs posted along the boundary of the property, when he called law enforcement, they would not prosecute because they claimed he didn't have enough signage," Slaw said. Under current law, Slaw said, a property owner must either build a fence or post signs at every "point of entry," a term the Department of Natural Resources has interpreted broadly. "So literally, you could have to post signs everywhere," he said.

Chris Semerneck, legislative liaison for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, told the committee the department supports the bill because it provides a clear standard for property owners and for law enforcement. Semerneck said the bill would preserve existing exemptions for farm property and wooded areas connected to farmland. "I don't believe is changing under this proposed bill is the fact that farmland and adjacent wood lots are exempt," Semerneck said.

Jason Haines, chief of law enforcement for the DNR, said the 250-foot rule would make it easier for prosecutors to argue that a landowner met the statutory posting requirement. "250 feet is a, clearly defined distance and certainly simplifies things for the property owner," Haines said, adding that in practice officers have sometimes had difficulty explaining what "visible at every point of entry" meant to a prosecutor or jury.

Committee members asked several clarifying questions about the measure. Representative Altman asked whether 250 feet is an "industry standard"; Slaw said the number was chosen as a reasonable visual standard rather than an established industry metric. Representative Weiss asked whether the distance is measured "along the perimeter line or ... as the crow flies;" Slaw responded that his understanding is that the measurement would follow the perimeter. Representative Woodin raised the possibility of short boundary segments shorter than 250 feet and asked whether an interval-based rule could leave a side of a parcel without signs; Slaw said the bill's intent is for boundary lines intended to be posted to be covered by the interval requirement.

Members also discussed enforcement when signs are removed. Haines said property owners who find signs torn down should document reposting with timestamped photographs; officers can document those efforts and submit cases to prosecutors if trespassing occurred but the citation could not be issued in the officer's presence. "When law enforcement is called out there and now those signs have been removed, we can at least show a very good faith effort on the part of the land owner to meet the requirements of the law," Haines said. He also noted prosecutors decide whether to pursue charges in cases not committed in an officer's presence.

Representative Ward asked whether officers typically issue a citation on first contact; Haines said if the trespass is occurring in the officer's presence and the statute's criteria are met, a citation would typically be issued. If the violation is no longer occurring when officers arrive, the incident is investigated and may be forwarded to prosecutors for charging decisions.

The committee's vice chair, Representative McFaul, and Representative Preston also questioned details of how the DNR and other law-enforcement agencies respond to trespassing calls and how dispatch routes such calls to conservation officers versus local sheriffs or state police. Semerneck said conservation officers will typically be sent if available but local agencies also routinely handle trespass calls.

A support card from Sean Cecil of the Michigan Realtors was read into the record; Cecil did not speak. The committee did not take a vote on HB 4013 at the session and the bill remains under committee consideration.

Clarifying details from the hearing: the bill sets a 250-foot maximum spacing for signs along a boundary; farmland and wooded areas connected to farmland are exempt; property owners would be responsible for posting signs; law enforcement advised using timestamped photographs to document removed signs; citations generally require the offense to be observed by officers or referral to prosecutors for misdemeanors not committed in an officer's presence.

No formal action or vote was recorded at the hearing. The committee adjourned after the testimony and registration of support.