Bill
S 1086
Two distinct S 1086 bills are in the packet: Idaho's land-use trespass amendment for recreational access and Massachusetts' judicial-review of restrictive housing.
Summary of Bill S 1086 — materials provided contain multiple, conflicting drafts (Idaho and Massachusetts). Below are clear, separate summaries of the two substantive texts included in the packet and practical notes about the mixed materials.
Important note about document set
- The packet contains at least two distinct bills both labeled “S 1086”: an Idaho bill (amending Idaho Code Title 18, Chapter 70) addressing trespass on lands open for recreation, and a Massachusetts bill (adding a new section to Chapter 249 of the General Laws) establishing judicial oversight of restrictive housing. The materials also include a fiscal note, a short title (“Stop CCP VISAs Act of 2025”) and mixed procedural/sponsor entries (including Ashley Moody and Senator Mark Harris). Before relying on this summary for advocacy or legal work, confirm which jurisdiction and final text are controlling.
1) Idaho — “Violation of Landowner Rules for Permissible Use” (proposed Section 18‑7045, Idaho Code)
- Purpose / intent: Clarify that recreational users who violate posted or otherwise-noticed conditions or restrictions on land use commit criminal trespass, with penalties matching existing criminal trespass provisions.
- Key provisions:
- Defines terms: “government entity,” “land,” “owner,” “notice” (actual or constructive; includes posted signs with “use restrictions apply” and contact info), and “recreational purposes” (cross‑references §36‑1604).
- Establishes that when a landowner or government manager gives notice and imposes closures, restrictions, regulations or prohibitions on recreational use, persons who violate those terms are guilty of trespass.
- Violations punishable as provided in §18‑7008(3), Idaho Code (i.e., under the state’s existing trespass penalty scheme).
- Emergency clause: Act to take effect July 1, 2025.
- Who is affected: private landowners, federal/state/local agencies managing land, recreational users (hikers, hunters, anglers, off‑road users, etc.), and law enforcement prosecuting trespass.
- Fiscal impact: Fiscal note supplied by a proponent states “no impact to the State’s General Fund or to any dedicated fund.”
- Procedural status (from packet): Introduced and passed through Idaho Senate committee action; readings recorded and hearing(s) scheduled (see note above about mixed records).
2) Massachusetts — “An Act relative to judicial oversight” (new Section 12A to Chapter 249)
- Purpose / intent: Create a court‑review mechanism permitting prisoners (or their representatives or staff on request) to seek transfer out of restrictive housing into less restrictive conditions when certain temporal and substantive thresholds are met.
- Key provisions:
- Who may petition: the incarcerated person, the prisoner’s legal representative, or detention staff at the prisoner’s request.
- Jurisdiction: District court for the facility’s location, or the criminal case court if the prisoner is pretrial.
- Trigger/threshold: Court must order transfer to less restrictive environment if (1) the prisoner has been in restrictive housing (or conditions more restrictive than general population) for more than 72 hours within a 144‑hour period, and (2) the conditions are not reasonably calculated to promote safety or security or are inconsistent with the interests of justice.
- Notification and filing duties: Once the 72‑hour threshold is reached, staff must advise the prisoner every 24 hours of the right to petition and, if the prisoner requests staff to act, an authorized staff designee must file a petition within 12 hours.
- Administrative handling: Courts may forward petitions filed in a court that lacks jurisdiction; courts may order periodic reviews of transfers.
- Who is affected: incarcerated persons in restrictive housing in Massachusetts, corrections staff, prison administrators, and district/criminal courts.
- Procedural status (from packet): Bill filed (Senate Docket No. 1686), presented by Sen. James Eldridge; referred to the Judiciary.
Potential impacts and considerations
- Idaho bill: Clarifies enforcement authority for owners and land-managing agencies to make conditional recreational access enforceable by trespass penalties; could increase criminal enforcement actions where conditions are posted or otherwise communicated. Implementation depends on notice practices and enforcement priorities.
- Massachusetts bill: Adds an enforceable court remedy and administrative duties for staff; could reduce prolonged use of restrictive housing by creating timely judicial review, increase court caseloads, and require prison policy adjustments for notification and filing procedures.
Recommendation
- Verify the intended jurisdiction and final bill text (Idaho vs. Massachusetts) before taking action. The packet contains conflicting sponsor and procedural entries; confirm which S 1086 you need summarized (and whether the “Stop CCP VISAs” short title applies to a separate proposal).
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
