WeVote
Log In

Bill

WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 332

Summary — HB 332: Unlawful Squatting

Status: Action postponed indefinitely (introduced Nov. 12, 2024)
Subject areas: Crimes & penalties; property (real estate, land occupancy)

Main purpose

HB 332 would create a new criminal offense of “unlawful squatting” and establish parallel civil remedies and an expedited removal process. The bill is intended to give property owners a statutory mechanism to remove and seek damages from persons who occupy real property without the owner’s (or authorized occupant’s) knowledge or consent.

Key provisions

  • New criminal offense: “Unlawful squatting” defined as residing on another’s property without the owner’s/occupant’s/authorized representative’s knowledge or consent. The offense is a fourth‑degree felony.
  • Civil damages: Amends trespass statutory provisions to allow owners to recover civil damages if an unlawful squatter injures, damages, or destroys realty or improvements (buildings, structures, trees, shrubs, etc.).
  • Citation and short verification period: Law enforcement issuing a citation must advise the alleged squatter that they may present documentation (e.g., valid lease/rental agreement, proof of rental payments, deed) to the head of the issuing agency or designee within three days. Failure to produce documentation within that period may subject the person to arrest for unlawful squatting.
  • Removal procedure (expedited administrative/civil process):
    • A claimant asserting a right to possession may submit an affidavit to county law enforcement.
    • Law enforcement must present the affidavit to the alleged squatter at least three days before removal, unless the squatter files a counter‑affidavit claiming legal possession.
    • If no counter‑affidavit is filed, law enforcement may remove the person after the three‑day notice period.
    • If a counter‑affidavit is filed, both parties remain on premises while the claimant files for a non‑jury (bench) trial in district court to determine possession.
    • If the court rules for the claimant, a writ of possession is issued and law enforcement may remove the occupant; court may award fair‑market rent for the period of occupancy and other monetary relief.
    • Appeals to the New Mexico Supreme Court are allowed but not subject to de novo review.
  • Clarifications: The statute would not prohibit property owners or authorized occupants from shutting off utilities.

Who is affected

  • Property owners and authorized occupants — gain a statutory removal mechanism and potential damages remedies.
  • Individuals occupying property without consent — exposed to a new felony offense, citation and short deadlines to produce proof of authorization, and expedited civil removal.
  • Law enforcement — responsible for administering the affidavit/citation process and removals.
  • Courts — required to hear expedited non‑jury trials to adjudicate disputed possession claims.
  • Corrections system — potential increase in felony prosecutions/incarcerations.

Fiscal and operational impacts

  • The Legislative Finance Committee / Corrections analysis estimates one additional incarcerated person annually could cost the state roughly $28,200 marginally per year; overall fiscal impact on corrections could be moderate if prosecutions increase. Court impact described as indeterminate but expected to be minimal.
  • The bill contains no explicit appropriation. If enacted without a specified effective date, it would become effective 90 days after adjournment (estimated June 20, 2025, in the fiscal note).

Significant issues and concerns noted in analyses

  • Overlap with existing trespass statutes: Trespass is already criminalized; this bill elevates some forms of trespass (residing on property) to felony status.
  • Lack of mens rea and undefined terms: “Reside” is not defined and there is no clear mental‑state requirement, raising concerns that the law could apply to temporary sleeping in tents, abandoned buildings, or unhoused individuals.
  • Potential targeting of unhoused persons and civil liberties questions; ambiguity could create enforcement and constitutional issues.
  • The bill creates two different remedy tracks (criminal citation/arrest and civil expedited removal) which may raise procedural and due‑process questions.

Other notes

  • The fiscal note references related or similar measures (e.g., SB 153 and SB 228) and identifies conflicts with other bills (HB 309, SB 359).
  • Because multiple jurisdictions use the HB 332 bill number for unrelated measures, ensure references match the New Mexico unlawful‑squatting version when tracking movement or related documents.

If you want, I can:
- Draft a one‑page explainer targeted to property owners or advocates for unhoused populations, or
- Produce a side‑by‑side comparison with current trespass law and Georgia’s recently enacted “unlawful squatting” statute cited in analyses.

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

Sign in to ask a question.