SB 5538
In CommitteeSenate
Unauthorized persons/removal
Concerning the removal of unauthorized persons.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill gives law enforcement new authority to remove individuals from residential properties based on sworn declarations from property owners—without needing a court order—but only if the officer has probable cause and gives occupants a chance to prove lawful status. It also creates civil and criminal penalties for false claims or forged documents, and protects tenants from illegal evictions.
- Grants peace officers authority to remove individuals from residential property if a property owner or agent submits a sworn declaration (under penalty of perjury) stating the person is unauthorized, and the officer has probable cause to believe criminal trespass occurred.
- Requires officers to give occupants a reasonable chance to present credible evidence (e.g., lease, ID) showing they are lawful tenants, guests, or invitees before removal.
- Makes it a crime (and civil liability trigger) to submit falsified documents—like counterfeit rental agreements—to law enforcement during removal attempts.
- Creates a civil cause of action for people wrongfully removed: they can sue the person who made the false declaration for actual damages, court costs, and attorney fees.
- Bars liability for law enforcement officers acting in good faith under the new rules, and explicitly preserves tenant protections in the Landlord-Tenant Act (e.g., no self-help evictions).
- Requires declarations to include specific elements, including a warning that false statements may lead to civil liability and a promise to indemnify law enforcement.
Who is affected
- Property owners or authorized agents — Property owners or their authorized agents who may submit declarations to law enforcement to remove individuals they believe are unauthorized occupants; they must swear under penalty of perjury that their statements are true and may be held financially liable if false.
- Tenants, legal occupants, and their guests — Individuals living in or occupying property who may be removed by law enforcement if declared unauthorized; they have the right to present evidence (e.g., lease agreements) to prove lawful occupancy and may sue if wrongfully removed.
- Law enforcement officers and agencies — Law enforcement officers who rely on sworn declarations to decide whether to remove individuals; they are protected from liability if acting in good faith, but must consider evidence presented by occupants before acting.
- Individuals who provide falsified documents — Individuals who submit falsified documents (e.g., fake leases) to law enforcement to avoid removal; they may face criminal charges and civil liability for making false statements to public servants.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill explicitly bars law enforcement from acting as eviction agents and preserves statutory tenant protections (e.g., no self-help evictions under RCW 59.18.230/290), reinforcing the legal boundary between civil landlord-tenant disputes and criminal enforcement—protecting tenants from illegal coercion by landlords.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: RCW 9A.52.105(3)By criminalizing falsified documents submitted to officers and creating a civil cause of action for those harmed by false declarations, the bill deters fraudulent claims by landlords or agents—protecting tenants from malicious or retaliatory removal attempts based on forged leases or false assertions.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: RCW 9A.76.175 and RCW 4.24.355(2)Mandating that declarants acknowledge liability for false statements—including indemnification of law enforcement—raises the stakes for false reporting and may deter frivolous or retaliatory declarations, especially when combined with perjury penalties.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: RCW 9A.52.105(4)(h)-(j)Requiring officers to independently assess probable cause (not just accept the owner’s declaration) adds a layer of judicial-like scrutiny before removal, reducing the risk of arbitrary enforcement and aligning with constitutional protections against unreasonable seizure.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: RCW 9A.52.105(2)The explicit preservation of existing tenant rights under the Landlord-Tenant Act prevents the bill from undermining statutory eviction protections, helping maintain due process in housing disputes.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: RCW 9A.52.105(6)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill introduces a new extrajudicial removal process that could increase the risk of mistaken removals—especially for vulnerable populations like low-income tenants, immigrants, or those without easy access to formal documentation—despite procedural safeguards, because officers may lack time, training, or resources to thoroughly verify claims in the field.
Public SafetyRef: RCW 9A.52.105(3)While the bill creates a civil cause of action for wrongful removal, the practical barriers to pursuing such claims—especially for low-income individuals who must hire attorneys and navigate civil court—mean most wrongfully removed people will not recover damages, leaving the right to redress largely theoretical for everyday people.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: RCW 4.24.355(1)Local governments may face increased costs from civil litigation and criminal prosecutions stemming from disputes over removals, potentially diverting limited law enforcement and court resources away from other public safety priorities.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Fiscal Impact section (civil lawsuits under RCW 4.24.355 and criminal prosecutions under RCW 9A.76.175)The 12-month cutoff for prior tenancy in the declaration requirement may unintentionally penalize individuals in transitional housing situations (e.g., former tenants in informal month-to-month arrangements or those who recently moved out but still have personal property or social ties to the unit), increasing housing instability.
HousingRef: RCW 9A.52.105(4)(d)The requirement that officers consider evidence presented by occupants before removal may reduce arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement—but only if officers are properly trained and held accountable, and there is no guarantee of consistent implementation across jurisdictions.
Public SafetyRef: RCW 9A.52.105(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Tenants and legal occupants—especially low-income, transient, or non-English-speaking individuals—face higher risk of mistaken removal due to documentation barriers, but gain stronger legal recourse if wronged. Net impact is negative for vulnerable subgroups despite formal protections.
Property owners gain a faster, cheaper alternative to civil eviction—but are now financially liable for false declarations. This disproportionately benefits wealthier owners who can absorb liability risk, while small landlords may be deterred by exposure to lawsuits.
Law enforcement gains a new tool to address suspected criminal trespass but faces increased liability exposure only in bad-faith cases. Most officers benefit from liability protection, but departments may face resource strain from litigation and training demands.
Individuals who submit falsified documents face criminal and civil exposure, which deters fraud—but this group is typically low-income individuals trying to avoid homelessness, not malicious actors. Policy may unintentionally criminalize desperation.
Local governments may face increased civil litigation and criminal prosecution costs, but benefit from reduced liability exposure due to indemnification clauses—net impact is modestly negative due to budgetary strain.