WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5778

Crimes: trespassing; penalties for trespassing; increase. Amends sec. 552 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.552).

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Brian BeGole and 10 co-sponsors

Toughens trespass penalties in Michigan, expanding liability for those who remain after being told to leave (including fenced or posted farms) and increasing penalties for repeat o

bill electronically reproduced 04/14/2026
#crimes:trespassing
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5778

Summary of House Bill 5778 (2025-2026) — Michigan

Overview

  • Jurisdiction: Michigan
  • Subject: Crimes — trespassing; penalties for trespassing; increase
  • Current law amended: Section 552 of 1931 PA 328 (Michigan Penal Code), as amended by 2013 PA 230
  • Introduced: April 14, 2026 by Reps. Frisbie, Kelly, Wozniak, Outman, Neyer, Harris, Bierlein, BeGole, DeBoyer, Kunse, and Robinson
  • Committee: Judiciary
  • Effective date: 90 days after enactment

Purpose and intent

The bill proposes changes to state trespass provisions to:
- Clarify prohibited conduct on lands or premises when a property owner, occupant, or their agent has forbidden access or has asked a person to leave.
- Expand penalties for repeat violators to reflect prior offenses.

In short, the bill tightens and increases penalties for trespassing in Michigan, including on fenced or posted farm property, while preserving certain exemptions for process servers and those attempting direct contact with the owner/agent.

Key provisions and changes

Prohibited conduct (Sec. 552(1))

A person shall not:
- (a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after being forbidden by the owner, occupant, or their agent.
- (b) Remain on the land or premises after being notified to depart by the owner, occupant, or their agent.
- (c) Enter or remain on fenced or posted farm property of another person without the consent of the owner, lessee, or their agent. Notably:
- A request to leave is not a necessary element for violation under this subdivision.
- The provision does not apply to someone who is attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner/lessee/agent to request consent.

Exceptions (Sec. 552(2))

  • Subsection (1) does not apply to a process server who is on the land while attempting to serve process to:
    • The owner or occupant
    • The owner/occupant’s agent
    • A lessee of the land or premises

Penalties (Sec. 552(3)-(4))

  • General trespass violation (Sec. 552(3)):
    • Misdemeanor
    • Imprisonment in county jail up to 30 days, or fine up to $250, or both
  • Repeat offender (Sec. 552(4)):
    • If the violator has previously been convicted of a violation of subsection (1), the offense is a misdemeanor with:
    • Imprisonment up to 90 days, or fine up to $500, or both

Definitions (Sec. 552(5))

  • “Process server” means a person authorized under Michigan law or Supreme Court rules to serve process.

Who is affected

  • Individuals who trespass on lands or premises after being told to leave, including those on fenced or posted farm property, would face defined misdemeanor penalties.
  • Process servers are expressly exempt from the prohibition in certain circumstances (i.e., while serving process on the owner, occupant, agent, or lessee).
  • Repeat offenders (those with prior violations) would face higher penalties.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Effective date: The act becomes law 90 days after enactment, giving time for agencies and courts to adjust to the updated trespass standards and penalties.
  • The bill’s changes are codified in the Michigan Penal Code (MCL 750.552).

Considerations for readers

  • The bill emphasizes immediate removal upon notification (with limited exceptions) and tightens penalties, particularly for those with prior trespass convictions.
  • Farm property protections are notably highlighted, aligning trespass rules with posted or fenced land.
  • Process servers are not penalized under the same scope when delivering court processes.

If you want, I can provide a plain-language comparison of current law vs. HB 5778 side-by-side, or outline potential fiscal or enforcement considerations.

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

Sign in to ask a question.