Lawmakers weigh criminalization, police role vs. eviction process for unauthorized occupants

A contentious portion of the hearing centered on a proposal to allow police intervention when an occupant in a residence is labeled "unauthorized" or "unlawful," rather than relying solely on the civil eviction (summary process) system. Testimony exposed a sharp divide between landlords who face costly, slow evictions and legal advocates who caution against turning civil landlord-tenant matters into criminal police enforcement.

Landlords and a state marshal told lawmakers of scenarios where people occupy vacant or re-possessed properties without permission and described lengthy, costly efforts to remove them through the courts. State Marshal Brian Mezick observed that enforcement of court orders is difficult and that some cases "lend to many shades of gray," asking the committee to consider the practical burdens on owners who cannot use self-help.

Connecticut Legal Services' Raphael (Rafi) Podolsky and others opposed criminalizing broader categories of unauthorized occupancy. Podolsky warned that HB 6338 "effectively encourages the use of police in a larger number of instances to dealing with cases that ought to be brought as ordinary evictions," and that police are not the appropriate body to adjudicate disputes that should be handled civilly with procedural protections and opportunities to raise defenses. Legal-aid witnesses said criminalization could incentivize lockouts and arrests without due process.

Marshals and landlord witnesses describe rare, clear-cut trespass or breaking-and-entering cases in which police currently can act, and they asked the committee to craft narrow language to capture true trespass situations (forced entry) rather than broadly criminalizing occupancy disputes between landlords and tenants or guests. Representative and committee members raised concerns about obvious theft or breaking-and-entering cases where immediate police removal is appropriate, while also noting numerous fact patterns where oral agreements, informal tenancy, or family arrangements make the situation ambiguous.

Why it matters: The choice to make unauthorized-occupant disputes a policing matter or to keep them in civil court affects due process, the use of police resources, and costs borne by property owners and tenants. Drafting matters: opponents urged narrow statutory language limited to clear trespass/break-in facts and cautioned against creating incentives for inappropriate arrests or for enabling unlawful lockouts outside the eviction process.

Speakers (selected): - Raphael (Rafi) Podolsky, Connecticut Legal Services (nonprofit/legal) - Brian Mezick, State Marshal, AFSCME Local 2193 (government/operational) - John Souza, Connecticut Coalition of Property Owners (business/citizen)

Authorities: [{"type":"other","name":"Summary process (civil eviction) procedures","referenced_by":["HB 6338 testimony"]},{"type":"statute","name":"Trespass and criminal statutes (general)","referenced_by":["HB 6338 testimony"]}]

Provenance:{"transcript_segments":[{"block_id":"t7390.36-7442.46","local_start":0,"local_end":240,"evidence_excerpt":"I'm gonna try and squeeze in as much as I can in 3 minutes here...we oppose house bill number 63 38...effectively encourages the use of police in a larger number of instances to dealing with cases that ought to be brought as ordinary evictions.","reason_code":"topicintro"},{"block_id":"t15599.59-15613.064","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"We serve all the legal process...we also enforce all the court orders...these are difficult, challenging situations...there's many, many shades of gray.","reason_code":"topicfinish"}]}

Salience: {"overall":0.58,"overall_justification":"Lively debate over policing vs. civil process; impacts landlords, tenants, police, and marshals across the state.","impact_scope":"state","impact_scope_justification":"Effect on eviction enforcement and police involvement statewide.","attention_level":"medium","attention_level_justification":"Practitioners and stakeholders strongly involved but narrower public attention than budgetary homeless ask."}

sections:{"lede":"The committee heard sharply divergent views on HB 6338, a measure that would expand police authority to remove so-called "unauthorized" or "unlawful" occupants from private property rather than proceeding via civil eviction.","nut_graf":"Legal-aid witnesses opposed routing disputes to police and warned of lockouts, arrests and loss of due process; landlords and the state marshal described costly, slow evictions and asked for narrowly drafted authority limited to clear trespass or breaking-and-entering cases.","ending":"Committee members asked staff for redrafting ideas that would protect property owners in clear criminal trespass cases while preserving civil-process safeguards for ambiguous occupancy disputes."}

topic_primary:"eviction_and_trespass","topics":[{"name":"unauthorized_occupants","justification":"Central debate about policing vs. civil evictions and statutory scope.","scoring":{"topic_relevance":0.98,"depth_score":0.68,"opinionatedness":0.30,"controversy":0.80,"civic_salience":0.60,"impactfulness":0.55,"geo_relevance":0.95}}],

speakers:[{"name":"Raphael Podolsky","role_title":"Attorney","affiliation_type":"nonprofit","affiliation_name":"Connecticut Legal Services"},{"name":"Brian Mezick","role_title":"State Marshal","affiliation_type":"government","affiliation_name":"AFSCME Local 2193"},{"name":"John Souza","role_title":"President","affiliation_type":"business","affiliation_name":"Connecticut Coalition of Property Owners"}],

authorities:[{"type":"other","name":"Summary process (civil eviction) procedures","referenced_by":["HB 6338 testimony"]},{"type":"statute","name":"Criminal trespass and breaking statutes","referenced_by":["HB 6338 testimony"]}],

actions:[],

discussion_decision:{"discussion_points":["Whether to permit immediate police removal in clear trespass/break-in cases versus using civil eviction for occupancy disputes.","Risk of misuse and potential loss of due process or increase in arrests and improper lockouts."],"directions":["Refine statutory language to narrowly define criminal trespass/unauthorized occupant scenarios; consider alternative remedies and oversight."],"decisions":[]},

clarifying_details:[{"category":"eviction_timeline","detail":"Landlords described average multi-month delay for eviction hearings; marshals reported many moves (1000+ in careers)","value":"2-4","units":"months","approximate":true,"source_speaker":"Brian Mezick"}],

proper_names:[{"name":"AFSCME Local 2193","type":"organization"},{"name":"Connecticut Legal Services","type":"organization"}],

community_relevance:{"geographies":["statewide"],"funding_sources":[],"impact_groups":["small landlords","tenants","police"]},

meeting_context:{"engagement_level":{"speakers_count":12,"duration_minutes":90,"items_count":1},"implementation_risk":"high","history":[{"date":"2025-02-01","note":"Public hearing debate on squatting/unauthorized occupant bill."}]},

searchable_tags:["eviction","squatting","HB6338","trespass"] }

,{