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

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 4/30/2024 1:23 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

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)

ROFLMAO.  You have no clue how the courts actually work.

In a busy housing court, three months at the minimum.

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.

The issue is with claims of tenancy.  If the squatters/trespassers
verbally claim to the police tenancy then the police, either by
department or DA policy, have to treat it as a case requiring eviction.
And in most jurisdictions evictions are a county sheriff responsibility,
NOT city police.

If the DA isn't enforcing the law against trespass by policy and not due to a
problem with the law, then that's not a problem with the law!

I still don't see why the police cannot investigate. They come to a
property to gather facts. Let's start with recent signs of a break in.
Does the purported tenant have keys to the door locks? Can he show a
lease? Has he received mail? Who has documents with that address on it?
Do the neighbors recognize the people in the house?

They can write down everything they are told and then later make arrests
of people who lied to them if they do not have "reasonable suspicion" to
make the arrest at the time.

And there is the tiny little issue of what if the tenancy claim is
legitimate?  (And NO, it is not as simple as you think.  If it was
landlords would not have to give any notice to legitimate tenants.  They
could just lock out paying tenants out on a whim immediately.  How would
you like to come home one day to find your landlord had locked you out
and was auctioning off or throwing out all your possessions?)

That does not preclude the police from investigating and gathering
evidence. If it's a long-time tenant whom the landlord locked out, then
the tenant will have evidence of residency, like a driver's license and
voter registration and mail.

The authorities were called. Someone lied. Investigate, then make the
arrest.