Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Trespass Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor seeks required ‘no loitering/no trespassing’ postings to aid police response in wrongful-detainer cases; civil-rights groups raise concerns
Summary
Delegate Frank Conaway introduced HB 252 to require property postings so police can act in alleged trespass/wrongful-detainer situations. The Public Justice Center and Realtors opposed or raised concerns about unintended effects on renters and court remedies.
Delegate Frank Conaway presented House Bill 252, which would require posting of “no loitering/no trespassing” notices on certain properties so that law enforcement could act on reports of trespass and wrongful detainer.
Conaway described community reports that police told residents they could not act because properties lacked posted notices. “I’m putting this bill in to say that you’re required to put up the posting to say no lawerin’ and no trespassing so law enforcement can do their job,” Conaway said, and he asked the committee for a favorable report.
Opposition testimony came from Bill Castelli on behalf of the Realtors and Matt Hill of the Public Justice Center. Castelli said wrongful-detainer is typically a civil remedy for owners, and posting requirements raise practical proof issues when a property has been occupied by a third party — an occupier may remove signs and it could be difficult to show a sign was in place at the time of occupancy. He said landlords and other owners rely on wrongful-detainer actions when trespass removal through criminal trespass enforcement is impractical.
Matt Hill said his written testimony flagged a different concern: depending on how the bill is read, a posted sign could allow a property owner to use wrongful-detainer procedures against an occupant who is actually a renter, thereby bypassing landlord-tenant protections. Hill said the committee should ensure the bill cannot be used to evade landlord-tenant law and urged lawmakers to clarify its scope.
Committee members asked whether posting or a verbal notice would be sufficient to justify police action and whether signs would meaningfully change law-enforcement decision-making. Witnesses said police sometimes hesitate to act when ownership or possession is disputed; they debated whether clear statutory posting rules would reduce that uncertainty and whether criminal trespass standards already provide adequate criminal-law tools. The hearing transcript records no legislative vote or amendment to the bill.
