Re: Gov. Katie Hobbs (D Arizona) vetoes bill allowing police to arrest trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.

If it had become law, police could have immediately removed these fake
tenants.

The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."

The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant law,
and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.

What the heck do issues of domestic violence have to do with squatters
moving in when the homeowner is away and refusing to vamoose in near
record time when found out?

Let's be more precise with language. Someone falsely claiming to be a
tenant is not a squatter. Squatting has to do with hostile encroachment
upon abandoned land. A homeowner temporarily away has not abandoned his
land. These are trespassers.

If >I< were Governor I'd work towards instant eviction along with
award of damages as soon as an injuction were obtained and i would
order application for such injunctions get ultra-high priority in
court scheduling. (I'd be satisfied with 2-3 hour turnaround - and
DEFINITELY not 4-6 weeks as I've heard of in some jurisdictions)

And again, we want to AVOID eviction because we DO NOT want to entertain
a false claim of tenancy at all. The homeowner does not want to go
through an eviction at all. These are trespassers. Trespassers must be
EJECTED from the property.

Eviction has to do with a tenant staying beyond the terms of his
tenancy.

If homeowners can't be secure in lawful possession of their own homes
something is either wrong with the law or its enforcement.

The claim was that police could not make an arrest in the case of
trespass but the article didn't make it clear what was wrong with the
current law.

If that makes me sound 'redneck' secure possession of one's own home
has got to be just behind "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Other things are negotiable - this isn't.

I'm not sure what you mean here.