WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 2240

A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 12.1-23 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to prohibiting a political subdivision from seizing personal property without notice; to amend and reenact section 12.1-23-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to theft of property; and to provide a penalty.

69th Legislative Assembly (2025-26) Introduced by Mike Dwyer and 4 co-sponsors

Bans pre-seizure property grabs by government actors on private land without notice or owner acknowledgment, treating violators as theft and creating liability for officials.

Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 8 nays 39
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 2240

SB 2240 — Summary

Status: Introduced in the Senate; failed on second reading (yeas 8, nays 39).
Introduced: March 11, 2025. Primary sponsor: Sen. Mike Wobbema. Co‑sponsors: Daniel Johnston, Janne Myrdal, Michael Dwyer, Bob Paulson. Companion: HB 4271.

Purpose / Intent

The bill would restrict political subdivisions (including counties and home‑rule cities) and public servants from seizing or confiscating an individual’s personal property located on that individual’s real property unless the owner has first been given specified written notice or has acknowledged receipt. It seeks to make unlawful, and therefore potentially criminal, the seizure of private personal property by government actors without prior notice.

Key provisions

  • Amends North Dakota Century Code § 12.1‑23‑02 (Theft of property) by adding a new subsection that makes it theft when a public servant, acting under governmental authority or color of law, knowingly seizes or confiscates private property located on the owner’s real property before:
    • providing the owner written notice in person or via certified mail of the impending seizure or confiscation; or
    • receiving the owner’s signature acknowledging receipt of the required notice.
  • Creates a new statutory section in chapter 12.1‑23 titled “Theft by a political subdivision,” which prohibits a political subdivision from seizing or confiscating an individual’s personal property from real property owned by that individual before:
    • providing the owner written notice in person or via certified mail of the impending seizure or confiscation; or
    • receiving the owner’s signature acknowledging receipt of the required notice.

Who is affected

  • Property owners: owners of real property whose personal property (e.g., items on their land, vehicles, equipment) could be subject to seizure under local ordinances or enforcement actions.
  • Political subdivisions and their employees/agents: cities, counties, and home‑rule entities that carry out code enforcement, nuisance abatements, towing, property cleanup, or other seizures.
  • Law enforcement and code enforcement officers: potential criminal liability exposure if they seize property without first complying with notice/acknowledgment requirements.

Potential impacts and issues

  • Criminal liability: The amendment treats certain seizures by government actors as theft; enforcement would follow theft provisions in state law (the bill text does not itself specify a unique penalty level).
  • Operational changes for local governments: municipalities would need procedures to provide in‑person or certified‑mail notice (or document owner signature) prior to many seizures, which could lengthen abatement timelines and increase administrative costs.
  • Legal ambiguity/exceptions: The bill text contains no explicit emergency or public‑safety exceptions (for immediate seizure during imminent danger, evidence preservation, or other statutory forfeiture processes), raising potential conflicts with existing statutes or case law that permit immediate action in emergencies.
  • Litigation risk: Municipalities could face injunctions or criminal charges if they proceed before satisfying the notice requirement; courts would likely be asked to construe the scope (what counts as “personal property from real property”) and any preemption or narrow exceptions.

Procedural history

  • Introduced March 11, 2025; various committee referrals and amendments followed.
  • Reported “do not pass” by committee and placed on calendar.
  • Second reading: failed to pass (yeas 8, nays 39). Bill did not become law in this session.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.