Senate Judiciary hears bill to strengthen removal tools for unauthorized occupants

Sen. Becky Beard, sponsor of Senate Bill 101, told the Senate Judiciary Committee the bill "creates the framework for the protection enforcement of property rights in the event a squatter illegally occupies the property" and would let owners request law enforcement to remove an unauthorized person more quickly.

The bill, presented at a Jan. 2025 Judiciary Committee hearing, would add penalties and civil remedies to existing Montana statutes cited by the sponsor and supporters. Proponents said the measure clarifies enforcement options and protects law enforcement; opponents warned it could criminalize people experiencing housing instability and risk uneven enforcement across the state.

Why it matters: The bill would change both civil and criminal responses to unauthorized occupants by (1) creating a statutory route for owners to request immediate law-enforcement removal, (2) adding fines and indemnification for false owner complaints and (3) attaching criminal penalties when forgery or criminal mischief is involved. Backers said those changes would reduce prolonged occupancy and protect owners and officers; critics said the language is vague, could be used against renters or people experiencing homelessness and would place new burdens on police, courts and jails.

Sponsor and proponents: Sen. Becky Beard (sponsor) opened the hearing describing SB101 as intended to "reform[] and strengthen protections so that property owners can expeditiously regain possession of their property," including references in the bill to multiple Montana code sections as read in testimony. Jim Manley, state legal policy chief for Pacific Legal Foundation, said the bill ‘‘creates a framework for property owners to request law enforcement to come in and remove those people and that framework is very important for both giving property owners the means to make that request and protecting law enforcement when they go in and execute that request.’’ John Sinner (Montana Landlord Association) and Adrian Cotto (Montana Building Industry Association) supported the bill with reservations, saying the measure would help protect vacant construction sites and owners’ private property.

Opposition and concerns: Henry Seaton of the ACLU of Montana urged a no vote, calling the bill “patently discriminatory” and arguing it could criminalize people who are homeless or housing-insecure. He warned the bill "creates the misdemeanor of being in a space for any period of time without the expressed consent of the owner" and that it could overburden law enforcement, jails and the courts. Other opponents, including the Montana League of Cities and Towns and housing advocates such as Catalyst Montana and the Montana Budget & Policy Center, said the bill is overly vague about key terms (for example what constitutes a premises or authorization) and could be used to circumvent normal eviction and judicial possession procedures. Several landlord witnesses also said the problem is not the law on the books but inconsistent enforcement by local law enforcement and county attorneys.

Points of dispute the committee pressed: Committee members asked whether the bill duplicates existing trespass law and whether it would force law enforcement into civil contract disputes. Proponents replied the bill addresses a particular scenario—an occupant who claims a lease or other authorization, creating uncertainty for responding officers—and that indemnity provisions protect officers who rely on owner statements. Opponents pointed to practical problems: training needs, differing local prosecutor policies and potential for uneven application across counties.

Key clarifications requested at the hearing: witnesses pressed for clearer definitions of "authorization," the scope of indemnification for law enforcement, and whether the bill would alter existing landlord-tenant remedies. Several witnesses recommended statutory amendments to define residential property owner, tenant and landlord, and to clarify when law enforcement "shall" versus "may" act.

Where things stand: The hearing closed after roughly an hour of witness testimony and committee questioning. The sponsor asked for a due-pass recommendation. Committee members signaled follow-up questions and possible amendments, particularly to tighten definitions and to address training and implementation burdens on law enforcement.

Ending note: The hearing captured a central tension: proponents framing the measure as restoring owners’ rights and protecting officers, and opponents warning the bill’s enforcement mechanics could criminalize vulnerable people and shift costs onto local government resources. The committee did not take a vote during the hearing.