WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 6851

AN ACT CONCERNING PURPLE PROPERTY BORDERS AS WARNING TO TRESPASSERS.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Pat Boyd and 1 co-sponsor

Authorizes landowners to post boundary purple markings as legal notice prohibiting trespass, clarifying notice standards and aiding enforcement.

TABLED FOR HOUSE CALENDAR
#misdemeanors #personalproperty #trespass
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 6851

Summary — HB 6851

Title: AN ACT CONCERNING PURPLE PROPERTY BORDERS AS WARNING TO TRESPASSERS
Bill Number: HB 6851
Status: Tabled for House Calendar (as of 2025-04-28)
Introduced: 2025-02-04
Subjects: Misdemeanors; Personal Property; Trespass

Purpose / Intent

Based on the bill title, HB 6851 appears intended to create a statutory method for landowners to provide visible notice to prospective trespassers by marking property boundaries with purple paint or other purple markings. The aim of such laws generally is to give lawful, unambiguous notice that entry is prohibited and to strengthen enforcement against unwarranted entry onto private lands.

Known procedural history

  • 2025-02-04: Referred to Joint Committee on Public Safety and Security; public hearing 02/11.
  • 2025-03-18 to 04/25: Joint favorable reports recorded; filed with LCO multiple times.
  • 2025-04-02: Favorable report; tabled for House calendar (House Calendar #283, File No. 453).
  • 2025-04-28: Filed with LCO; reported out of LCO; no new file by Judiciary Committee; tabled again for House calendar.

Likely key provisions (based on the title and common “purple paint” statutes)

The text of the bill was not provided. Typical elements such a bill would include are:
- A definition section (e.g., "posted land," "boundary marking," "owner," etc.).
- Authorized marking method: permitting landowners to paint or otherwise apply purple markings on boundary trees, posts, or fences as legally sufficient notice against trespass.
- Minimum size, spacing and placement requirements for marks (for example: vertical stripe of specified width and height placed at eye level and repeated at intervals along boundaries).
- Legal effect: entering posted land without permission after marking constitutes criminal trespass or supports a civil trespass claim; may affect mens rea for misdemeanor charges.
- Exceptions: rights of way, hunters (seasonal signage requirements), emergency personnel, utility employees, or those with legal easements.
- Penalties and enforcement: designation of offense (likely misdemeanor), possible fines, and procedures for prosecution.
- Effective date and enforcement provisions.

Who would be affected

  • Private landowners: gain a low-cost option to provide legal notice against trespass.
  • Recreational users (hikers, hunters) and neighboring property owners: must recognize purple markings as notice.
  • Law enforcement and prosecutors: new or clarified standard for establishing notice in trespass cases.
  • Utility, government, emergency personnel: likely carved out by exceptions.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Benefits: creates clearer notice reducing accidental trespass; may reduce litigation over whether adequate notice was given.
  • Concerns: need for clear technical standards (size, placement) to avoid disputes; potential conflicts with public access or long-standing informal access; environmental/visual impact of paint; enforcement resource implications.
  • Interaction with existing trespass and posting laws should be reviewed to avoid conflicts or unintended duplications.

Next steps / Where to find the bill text

The summary is based on the bill title and legislative actions; the full bill text is required for specifics (exact marking specifications, penalties, exceptions). Check the Connecticut General Assembly website or the Office of Legislative Research/LCO for HB 6851 (House Calendar #283, File No. 453) to retrieve the enacted text or full bill language and fiscal notes.

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

Sign in to ask a question.