Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary hears debate on 'Stop Squatters Act' aimed at faster removals and penalties
Summary
Supporters said SB101 gives property owners and law enforcement clearer tools to remove unauthorized occupants; opponents, including civil-rights and housing groups, called the bill vague, potentially punitive to unhoused people and duplicative of existing trespass laws.
Senator Becky Beard, sponsor of Senate Bill 101, told the Senate Judiciary Committee the Stop Squatters Act would strengthen property owners’ ability to regain possession and clarify penalties for false claims, including an indemnity requirement for owners who knowingly give false information to law enforcement. "Essentially, the language in this bill reforms and strengthens protections so that property owners can expeditiously regain possession of their property," the sponsor said.
Proponents framed the bill as a property-rights and public-safety measure. Jim Manley, state legal policy chief for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said similar laws have passed in other states and provide law enforcement with a clearer framework and indemnity when they act on owner requests. Representatives of the Montana Landlord Association and the Montana Building Industry Association testified they support the bill or support it with reservations, citing the bill’s potential to protect vacant or under-construction properties and job-site safety.
Opponents, including Henry Seaton of the ACLU of Montana, said SB101 risks criminalizing people who are unhoused and could worsen homelessness. "This bill is harmful, it's cruel, and it's unhelpful," Seaton told the committee, arguing the bill is vague about what areas it covers and would create a misdemeanor for being on property without expressed consent.
Other opponents, including civil-rights and tenant-advocacy groups, warned the legislation duplicates existing trespass and landlord-tenant law and could be used in bad-faith evictions. John Rhodes of Catalyst Montana said the bill might circumvent judicial processes for possession and leave renters with fewer ways to prove authorization to occupy a property, particularly where verbal agreements remain common.
Committee members pressed witnesses on operational details: how law enforcement would distinguish these situations from standard trespass or tenancy disputes, whether indemnification would deter bad-faith claims, and the potential fiscal impact on courts and police departments. Senator Smith requested a fiscal note tied to the bill’s fee-for-service provisions for law enforcement.
Senator Beard closed the hearing asking for a do-pass, saying the bill provides needed private-property protections and mechanisms to protect law enforcement when they remove unauthorized occupants. The committee closed the SB101 hearing without a vote recorded in the hearing transcript.
