Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Gov. Katie Hobbs (D Arizona) vetoes bill allowing police to arrest trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 08:23:53 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <v0q9qo$2bp77$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0orib$1tvca$1@dont-email.me> <2vl03jltkhjgbatrjvpa09fh5fkvcf3hne@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 10:23:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2e1e963bdddd711087034c6d1e2bdf25";
	logging-data="2483431"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lFQONUbiFB1kkmC0HE2lZgWzjPV+851I="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:muZ5+DRzW08S+c9dN40oH7khOcU=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 3302

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>It looked like Arizona was going to stand up for property owners dealing
>>with trespassers falsely claiming to be tenants that police won't
>>arrest. But the governor vetoed the bill.

>>If it had become law, police could have immediately removed these fake
>>tenants.

>>The governor claimed it "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms,
>>respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize
>>unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."

>>The bill's sponsor said it did not affect existing landlord-tenant law,
>>and it exempted family members and those agreeing to co-habitate.

>What the heck do issues of domestic violence have to do with squatters
>moving in when the homeowner is away and refusing to vamoose in near
>record time when found out?

Let's be more precise with language. Someone falsely claiming to be a
tenant is not a squatter. Squatting has to do with hostile encroachment
upon abandoned land. A homeowner temporarily away has not abandoned his
land. These are trespassers.

>If >I< were Governor I'd work towards instant eviction along with
>award of damages as soon as an injuction were obtained and i would
>order application for such injunctions get ultra-high priority in
>court scheduling. (I'd be satisfied with 2-3 hour turnaround - and
>DEFINITELY not 4-6 weeks as I've heard of in some jurisdictions)

And again, we want to AVOID eviction because we DO NOT want to entertain
a false claim of tenancy at all. The homeowner does not want to go
through an eviction at all. These are trespassers. Trespassers must be
EJECTED from the property.

Eviction has to do with a tenant staying beyond the terms of his
tenancy.

>If homeowners can't be secure in lawful possession of their own homes
>something is either wrong with the law or its enforcement.

The claim was that police could not make an arrest in the case of
trespass but the article didn't make it clear what was wrong with the
current law.

>If that makes me sound 'redneck' secure possession of one's own home
>has got to be just behind "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
>Other things are negotiable - this isn't.

I'm not sure what you mean here.