WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1299

Initiative and referendum; petitions; signatures; website; effective date.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Andy Fugate

Private citizens may break into a building to arrest after a present felony only if admitted, announced purpose, and there is a reasonable belief of imminent risk of serious injury

Second Reading referred to Rules
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1299

Summary — HB 1299 (North Dakota)

Amends and reenacts ND Century Code § 29‑06‑22 (when a private person may break into a building to make an arrest)

Main purpose

HB 1299 modifies the circumstances under which a private citizen (i.e., a non‑law‑enforcement person) may forcibly enter a building to arrest someone after a felony committed in the citizen’s presence. The amendment adds an explicit exigent‑risk requirement: the private person may break in only if, after being refused admittance and announcing their purpose, they reasonably believe someone inside is at imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death.

Key provisions

  • Amends NDCC 29‑06‑22. New statutory text authorizes a private person to break open a door or window of any building to make an arrest only when all of the following are true:
    • A felony was committed in the arresting person’s presence (consistent with § 29‑06‑20 authority for a citizen’s arrest);
    • The private person was refused admittance after announcing their purpose; and
    • The private person reasonably believes an individual inside the building is at imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death.
  • The bill is a narrow, targeted change to the existing citizen‑arrest statute—adding the “imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death” condition as a requirement for forcible entry.

Who is affected

  • Private citizens attempting to effect arrests (i.e., those who might break into premises to detain suspects) — the bill adds a limiting condition on when forcible entry is authorized.
  • Suspects and occupants of buildings — protections against warrantless forcible entry by private persons are strengthened unless an exigent risk exists.
  • Property owners / occupants — reduced likelihood of unauthorized break‑ins by private citizens except in narrowly defined emergency situations.
  • Law enforcement and courts — may see disputes and litigation over what constitutes a “reasonable belief” and “imminent risk,” and potential collateral civil claims for property damage or wrongful entry.

Procedural / timeline information

  • Sponsor: Representative Mike Koppelman (Introduced by Representative Koppelman).
  • Introduced: November 13, 2024.
  • Status (as provided): Filed with the Secretary of State on March 27 (2025).
  • Statutory target: replaces / reenacts NDCC § 29‑06‑22.

Practical implications / notes

  • The bill clarifies and narrows the circumstances for private forced entry to situations involving both a citizen’s arrest of a present felony and an immediate danger to life or serious bodily safety.
  • The addition of the “reasonable belief” and “imminent risk” standard creates fact‑specific legal questions that courts will resolve in post‑incident litigation (e.g., what a reasonable person could conclude in real time).
  • The change may reduce property‑damage incidents by private citizens and shift more responsibility to law enforcement except in clear emergency scenarios.

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

Sign in to ask a question.