Senate committee advances bill creating expedited process to remove unauthorized occupants
January 17, 2025 | Senate, Committees, Legislative, Wyoming
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
On Jan. 17, 2025, the Wyoming Senate Committee of the Whole voted to recommend passage of Senate File 6, a judiciary-sponsored bill that creates a new statutory process for landowners to seek law-enforcement removal of unauthorized persons from residential property and adds new criminal penalties related to false property documents and property defacement.
The bill matters because it changes how property owners and law enforcement may respond to alleged squatters and creates new criminal tools for prosecutors, while raising questions about due process and how the law will apply in cohabitation and domestic situations.
Senate File 6 is organized in three parts: a new civil removal procedure in Title 1 with definitions and an owner-signed affidavit that law enforcement must review; a criminal provision creating misdemeanors and felonies for presenting false lease or deed documents and for advertising property sale without title; and a change to the property-destruction statute so certain unlawful occupants who cause defacement or destruction can be charged with a felony regardless of the amount of damage. Senator Crago, who explained the bill on the floor, said the measure is “an attempt to address the squatting problem that has popped up across our state.”
Under the new removal process, a property owner or the owner’s authorized agent would sign an affidavit under oath listing specified facts. As explained by Crago, the affidavit must show that the applicant is the owner or the owner’s authorized agent, that the person sought to be removed is not an owner or co-owner and is not listed on title, that no litigation between the owner and the person is pending, that the unauthorized person is not a current tenant (in which case forcible entry and detainer procedures apply), and that the owner is requesting immediate law-enforcement removal. Crago said the committee removed a requirement that applicants show the date the dwelling was acquired, because “that can be determined at a later date” and might block urgent requests.
The bill also authorizes law enforcement to verify ownership before taking action. Senator Crago told the body that verification commonly involves phone calls to county clerks, treasurers, or assessors and that in some counties record ownership is searchable online; he warned that if verification cannot be done immediately, law enforcement may need to wait until the next business day before taking action.
Crago also described a civil-standby provision allowing officers to accompany owners while locks are changed; the standing committee amendment removed language permitting law enforcement to charge a fee for that service, after law-enforcement testimony that they typically do not charge for civil standbys.
The bill adds criminal penalties: a misdemeanor and, in some circumstances described on the bill’s page 10–11 text, a felony for presenting false documents purporting to be leases or deeds or for knowingly advertising property for sale when the seller lacks legal title. The bill further amends the state’s property-destruction statute so that an unlawful occupant who defaces or destroys property can be charged with a felony regardless of the dollar amount of damage, a change proponents said would deter destructive behavior by unlawful occupants.
Several senators raised concerns about how the procedure might apply to domestic cohabitation or unmarried partners. Senator Nethercott asked whether the law could be used “as a tool for domestic abuse” if one cohabitant fills out the form after a dispute: “Is law enforcement gonna be called to remove an individual who’s now unauthorized because there was a fight…?” Senator Landon responded that the bill contains family‑member language intended to guard against some domestic situations and suggested the committee might consider a further targeted amendment to address cohabitation scenarios. Senator Novakot emphasized that many cohabitation disputes create “a dicey situation” when no lease exists and said she urged “great caution” before creating an expedited removal mechanism for such circumstances.
Senator Anderson, speaking in support, praised the committee’s work and said the original constituent request had been to move from a civil remedy to criminal consequences: “My constituent brought this and all we wanted was to change it from a civil action to a, criminal action,” Anderson said, adding that the committee had addressed multiple statutes to produce a workable bill.
On procedural votes, Senator Crago moved Standing Committee Amendment Number 1, and the amendment was adopted by voice vote; the amendment deleted the acquisition-date requirement, removed language allowing a civil-standby fee, and made terminology and numbering changes (for example, changing “unauthorized occupant” to “unauthorized person”). Senator Olson moved that the committee report the bill favorably; Senate File 6 was reported out of the Committee of the Whole as “do pass amended.” The committee’s report was later adopted by the Senate.
The bill now proceeds in the legislative process with the committee’s favorable recommendation; the transcript does not record a roll-call tally for the amendment or the committee recommendation.
Votes at a glance: The Committee of the Whole adopted Standing Committee Amendment No. 1 by voice vote and reported Senate File 6 “do pass amended.”
Senate File 6 provenance: see excerpts below for the start of the bill’s reading and the final Committee of the Whole report on the bill.
The bill matters because it changes how property owners and law enforcement may respond to alleged squatters and creates new criminal tools for prosecutors, while raising questions about due process and how the law will apply in cohabitation and domestic situations.
Senate File 6 is organized in three parts: a new civil removal procedure in Title 1 with definitions and an owner-signed affidavit that law enforcement must review; a criminal provision creating misdemeanors and felonies for presenting false lease or deed documents and for advertising property sale without title; and a change to the property-destruction statute so certain unlawful occupants who cause defacement or destruction can be charged with a felony regardless of the amount of damage. Senator Crago, who explained the bill on the floor, said the measure is “an attempt to address the squatting problem that has popped up across our state.”
Under the new removal process, a property owner or the owner’s authorized agent would sign an affidavit under oath listing specified facts. As explained by Crago, the affidavit must show that the applicant is the owner or the owner’s authorized agent, that the person sought to be removed is not an owner or co-owner and is not listed on title, that no litigation between the owner and the person is pending, that the unauthorized person is not a current tenant (in which case forcible entry and detainer procedures apply), and that the owner is requesting immediate law-enforcement removal. Crago said the committee removed a requirement that applicants show the date the dwelling was acquired, because “that can be determined at a later date” and might block urgent requests.
The bill also authorizes law enforcement to verify ownership before taking action. Senator Crago told the body that verification commonly involves phone calls to county clerks, treasurers, or assessors and that in some counties record ownership is searchable online; he warned that if verification cannot be done immediately, law enforcement may need to wait until the next business day before taking action.
Crago also described a civil-standby provision allowing officers to accompany owners while locks are changed; the standing committee amendment removed language permitting law enforcement to charge a fee for that service, after law-enforcement testimony that they typically do not charge for civil standbys.
The bill adds criminal penalties: a misdemeanor and, in some circumstances described on the bill’s page 10–11 text, a felony for presenting false documents purporting to be leases or deeds or for knowingly advertising property for sale when the seller lacks legal title. The bill further amends the state’s property-destruction statute so that an unlawful occupant who defaces or destroys property can be charged with a felony regardless of the dollar amount of damage, a change proponents said would deter destructive behavior by unlawful occupants.
Several senators raised concerns about how the procedure might apply to domestic cohabitation or unmarried partners. Senator Nethercott asked whether the law could be used “as a tool for domestic abuse” if one cohabitant fills out the form after a dispute: “Is law enforcement gonna be called to remove an individual who’s now unauthorized because there was a fight…?” Senator Landon responded that the bill contains family‑member language intended to guard against some domestic situations and suggested the committee might consider a further targeted amendment to address cohabitation scenarios. Senator Novakot emphasized that many cohabitation disputes create “a dicey situation” when no lease exists and said she urged “great caution” before creating an expedited removal mechanism for such circumstances.
Senator Anderson, speaking in support, praised the committee’s work and said the original constituent request had been to move from a civil remedy to criminal consequences: “My constituent brought this and all we wanted was to change it from a civil action to a, criminal action,” Anderson said, adding that the committee had addressed multiple statutes to produce a workable bill.
On procedural votes, Senator Crago moved Standing Committee Amendment Number 1, and the amendment was adopted by voice vote; the amendment deleted the acquisition-date requirement, removed language allowing a civil-standby fee, and made terminology and numbering changes (for example, changing “unauthorized occupant” to “unauthorized person”). Senator Olson moved that the committee report the bill favorably; Senate File 6 was reported out of the Committee of the Whole as “do pass amended.” The committee’s report was later adopted by the Senate.
The bill now proceeds in the legislative process with the committee’s favorable recommendation; the transcript does not record a roll-call tally for the amendment or the committee recommendation.
Votes at a glance: The Committee of the Whole adopted Standing Committee Amendment No. 1 by voice vote and reported Senate File 6 “do pass amended.”
Senate File 6 provenance: see excerpts below for the start of the bill’s reading and the final Committee of the Whole report on the bill.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting