Bill to allow expedited removal of occupants from residential property moves to NC House floor
The North Carolina Legislative Building as it appeared on March 14, 2025. (Photo: Brandon Kingdollar/NC Newsline)
The North Carolina House Rules Committee advanced a bill Tuesday that would permit the expedited removal of unauthorized persons from residences, though some lawmakers voiced concerns over issues of due process.
Under House Bill 96, which was approved by the Judiciary 1 Committee last week, property owners and their representatives would be allowed to request law enforcement officers to remove individuals who are unlawfully inhabiting a residence they own and refuse to leave. A tenant who is holding over after a lease term has expired would not be subject to the bill as it does not apply to properties that were offered 'as an accommodation for the general public,' nor to circumstances in which payment for continued residence was demanded or paid or a contract permitting residence was agreed upon.
Upon the property owner's request, a county magistrate would be empowered to authorize the expedited removal of the occupant and require law enforcement to evict them from the property within 24 hours as well as potentially arrest them if they have violated trespassing or other laws. The bill also provides for law enforcement to 'stand by to keep the peace' while the property owner changes locks and removes the occupant's personal belongings, shielding officers from liability for complying with the law in good faith.
The bill would also protect property owners and their representatives from liability if the occupant's personal belongings are destroyed or damaged during the removal process unless the removal is found to be wrongful. In cases of wrongful removal, occupants can bring civil action to recover the property, costs and damages incurred, and a civil fine and attorneys' fees. And if the occupant and the owner are engaged in litigation prior to removal, expedited removal is prohibited.
Rep. Steve Tyson (R-Craven), who is a realtor and general contractor, said the bill is designed to target people who unlawfully inhabit homes and apartments where there was never a valid lease. Tyson said the bill was motivated by concern that such removals can be held up in court and appeals 'practically forever,' and he felt it necessary to make the process 'fair for the property owner.'
'Anybody can get a lease online now and print it out,' Tyson said. 'You can go somewhere online, find a copy of the deed to the property if you're savvy and see how the owner of the property signs their name. And so, it puts law enforcement in a very precarious position.'
But Rep. Sarah Stevens (R-Surry), who is an attorney, said she has 'genuine concerns' over the lack of due process for occupants under the expedited removal bill, adding that she plans to vote against the bill on the floor.
'There's a tremendous amount of violation of due process in this procedure,' Stevens said. 'A magistrate has no authority to take evidence to determine if there's any fairness or hear from the other side at all.'
She said even with the liability waiver at the state level, the bill puts law enforcement at risk for litigation over potential due process violations at the federal level.
Tyson said the penalties for filing for expedited removal under false premises act as a sufficient deterrent to property owners, even without an initial opportunity for the occupant to present their case.
'If an unscrupulous landlord — and there are a few of those out there as we know — goes in and swears this affidavit on this expedited removal and he perjures himself, it's punishable as a class F felony,' Tyson said. 'That's up to five years in prison.'
Rep. Carla Cunningham (D-Mecklenburg), who put forth a similar proposal in the previous session, said 'we need to do something' because property owners are losing out on tens of thousands of dollars because they are unable to remove people unlawfully living in residences they own.
'You get nothing and you are the one responsible for the property taxes on the property,' Cunningham said. 'I don't know if this is the right way to do it, Representative Stevens, but we've got to do something because people are losing money.'
While in favor of the bill creating an 'express lane' for removal, Rep. Reece Pyrtle (R-Rockingham), a former police chief, raised concerns over the onus placed on law enforcement to supervise the removal of occupants' personal belongings. He advised turning to a separate civil process for that aspect of the law. 'Being a law enforcement officer, being on the scene, I don't want to get into a he said-she said over a piece of property.'
The bill was one of 20 that received the Rules Committee's approval Tuesday afternoon. All bills in the House of Representatives must first win approval from the gatekeeper panel before proceeding to the full House for a vote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
New and damning school voucher data confirm worst fears
Ever since North Carolina legislators established the so-called 'Opportunity Scholarships' school voucher program, sponsors and proponents have pitched it as a means of helping low-income students escape struggling public schools. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, a new report from the Department of Public Instruction shows that this was all baloney. The DPI researchers found that just sixty-seven hundred of the state's eighty-thousand-plus vouchers in the current school year went to students who had attended a North Carolina public school in the prior year. And while the data for kindergartners were not yet available, it's clear that as much as ninety percent or more of new vouchers in 24-25 were for students who have never attended a public school. In other words, the vast majority of voucher money is going to parents – most of them well-off – who never had any intention of sending their kids to public schools. The bottom line: School vouchers in our state have nothing to do with quote 'opportunity' and everything to do with undermining and privatizing public education. Other explanations are simply false. For NC Newsline, I'm Rob Schofield.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
North Carolina House approves controversial gun bill, sends to Stein
North Carolina Legislative Building (Photo: Galen Bacharier/NC Newsline) The North Carolina House voted 59-48 Wednesday to pass a contentious bill authorizing constitutional carry, sending it to Democratic Gov. Josh Stein for approval. Senate Bill 50, 'Freedom to Carry NC,' would allow individuals who are U.S. citizens, at least 18 years of age, and not otherwise prohibited by law, to carry concealed weapons without applying for a permit. It's one of the most controversial topics of the legislative session. Members of Republican leadership support the bill, which would make North Carolina the 30th state to approve of so-called 'constitutional carry.' Republican Reps. Ted Davis of New Hanover and William Brisson of Bladen and Sampson counties voted against the bill. Davis also voted against the measure during Tuesday's House Rules Committee hearing. Ten Republicans and 3 Democrats abstained from voting. Stein signaled to reporters on Tuesday that he would veto the bill, according to The Carolina Journal. It's possible the legislature doesn't have the numbers to override a gubernatorial veto after Republicans lost their supermajority in the House following November's elections. Rep. Keith Kidwell (R-Beaufort) presented SB 50 to the chamber. 'It allows people to constitutionally carry a firearm without obtaining a permit from the government to exercise their God-given right to defend themselves,' he said. The bill does not change who may buy a firearm or the circumstances surrounding when or where an individual can carry a firearm, Kidwell said. Debate was lengthy, lasting about an hour. Roughly half of a dozen Democrats rose to speak out against the legislation, while a handful of Republicans defended it. Rep. Phil Rubin (D-Wake) cited surveys from Everytown for Gun Safety and Elon University that found a large majority of North Carolina voters were against removing permit requirements from concealed carry laws. Rep. Allen Buansi (D-Orange) said the bill made him think of his community: the people and the law enforcement. 'This bill would make their jobs a whole lot harder and put them at an even greater risk,' he said. Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham) proposed an amendment that would remove the first section of the legislation — the parts about eliminating the permit process. It would leave the portions about compensating the families of gun violence victims. These provisions were added by Democratic amendments when the measure appeared on the Senate floor in March. 'I just ask you to vote, pick out the most controversial, dangerous part of the bill,' Morey said. Kidwell asked the chamber to shut down Morey's amendment. 'This basically just guts out the bill,' he said. The amendment failed by a vote of 46-61. Morey argued that SB 50 itself highlights the harm it will cause. 'The first part eradicates the need for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, yet the rest of the bill addresses the irreparable damage that will come,' she said. 'It increases compensation for families, of slain law enforcement, EMS. It provides scholarships for children whose family members die.' Rep. Tracy Clark (D-Guilford) shared two emotional stories about her own experience and trauma from guns. A childhood friend died by suicide while the pair attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill together. Four years later, Clark lost another friend, Eve Carson, to homicide. Carson, UNC-Chapel Hill's student body president, was shot and killed near the campus in March 2008. 'Two totally different stories that I'm traumatized by: suicide with a good guy with a gun, homicide with two very bad guys with a gun,' Clark said. 'I have to speak out today because this bill goes too far.' House Democratic leader Robert Reives said he was moved by Clark's painful remembrance of her friends lost to gun violence. 'I felt I would be less of a man not to stand up and tell her how much I feel those stories,' said Reives. Rep. Jay Adams (R-Catawba) reminded the chamber that he, like many of his friends, are part of the baby boomer generation born to World War II veterans whose parents taught them how to own weapons responsibly. Adams said he has owned firearms since he was 11 years old. But circumstances are different now, Rep. Amos Quick (D-Guilford) retorted. He said everybody is a law-abiding citizen until they're not. 'When I was in school, no one thought about a school shooting,' he said. 'If we pass this bill, we are opening the door potentially for more of our children to have to endure the horrors of being locked in their classroom, because one of their classmates, 18 years old, had the state of North Carolina's stamp of approval to go and get a weapon and conceal it and walk in the school.' North Carolinians Against Gun Violence are calling on Governor Stein to veto SB 50. 'The safeguards we lose if we repeal the requirement for a concealed carry weapons permit are all too dangerous to risk when it comes to public carry of firearms in North Carolina,' said Becky Ceartas, executive director of NCGV. 'Without a background check, the public and law enforcement do not know who is illegally carry a concealed weapon or not.' Ceartas said weak concealed carry weapon permitting laws also increase gun thefts by approximately 35%. 'The General Assembly is taking us in the wrong direction for our state, and we urge Governor Stein to veto this dangerous bill.' Immediately after approving SB 50, the House passed legislation (HB 811CS) that would appropriate $1 million in recurring funds over the next two fiscal years. This would allow North Carolina's community colleges to establish a comprehensive firearm safety instruction course, making 'the instruction as accessible as possible to all citizens 18 years and older who seek to enroll.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
NC doctors, legislators, and cancer survivors push for prostate cancer screening money
New Bern Alderman Victor Taylor speaks about his prostate cancer treatment at a news conference on a proposal to establish a statewide screening program for uninsured and underinsured men. (Photo: Lynn Bonner/NC Newsline) Offering prostate cancer screening to men who are uninsured or underinsured will save lives, legislators, doctors, advocates, and cancer survivors said at a news conference Tuesday. 'Prostate cancer is one of the most curable cancers if it is detected early,' said Rep. Rodney Pierce (D-Halifax), the bill's lead sponsor. But, too many North Carolinians are diagnosed too late. 'This legislation is about saving lives, about a higher quality of life, and giving our fathers, uncles, brothers, nephews and sons the fighting chance they deserve,' he said. House bill 128 would appropriate $2 million to establish a prostate cancer screening program modeled after the state's breast and cervical cancer screening program. Money for prostate screening is not in the House or Senate budget proposals, but Pierce hopes it will be funded. Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the state, according to the UNC Men's Health Program. The issue has gained increased attention in the last few weeks after former President Joe Biden was diagnosed with 'a more aggressive form' of prostate cancer. Men in North Carolina are diagnosed with prostate cancer at higher rates than men nationally, according to the National Cancer Institute, and North Carolina's mortality rate is higher, at 20.2 per 100,000 men. Black men are more likely to develop prostate cancer and more likely to die from it, according to the American Cancer Society. Legislators at the Tuesday news conference made direct appeals to Black men to be screened. A blood test is used to screen for and monitor prostate cancer. Rep. Abe Jones (D-Wake) said he's tested twice a year because his father had prostate cancer. 'It is a sneaky, nasty, tricky disease,' Jones said. 'It's ugly and it kills Black men at a higher rate.' 'It doesn't give you a warning, it just comes on you,' Jones said. 'I just encourage all my brothers out there to please get tested.' New Bern Alderman Victor Taylor, a prostate cancer survivor, said the screening bill would help men in rural areas. It's vital for men to talk about prostate cancer, he said. 'It's so important to talk, talk, talk and share,' he said. 'You don't know how many lives you've saved by talking and sharing.' The bill proposes free or low-cost testing for uninsured or underinsured men ages 40 to 70 who have a family history of prostate cancer. Men without a family history would be eligible for screening at ages 50 to 70. Recommendations for screening have a cloudy history. In 2012, the US Preventative Service Task Force, a group of independent experts, recommended against routine screening. The recommendation changed in 2018, with the group suggesting men 55- to 69-years old talk with their doctors about regular screening. The task force is in the process of updating its recommendation. Dr. Dan George, a member of the Duke Cancer Institute who specializes in prostate cancers, said there's a concern that prostate cancer is going under-treated. 'It's so vitally important for people to recognize that knowledge is power,' George said. 'Understanding your cancer status is an opportunity for you to prevent a leading cause of death in this state.' Rural residents would benefit from routine testing that residents with access to medical specialists can more easily obtain, he said. Former state Sen. Eddie Goodall, a Union County Republican, talked about his prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Goodall said he was diagnosed in 2005, just as his first term in the legislature was beginning. 'I was excited about being a freshman senator and being able to change the world,' Goodall said. Instead, he received a diagnosis that he kept secret from his mother because he didn't want her to worry about another son dying. Goodall said that five years before he was diagnosed, his brother died of cancer. Goodall said he talked and compared notes with another former senator who was diagnosed with prostate cancer at about the same time. Goodall decided against surgery. The cancer spread to his bones. Goodall said he started hormone therapy in 2018 and was told he had 18 months to two years to live. 'But it's been seven years, and I'm still here. So I'm very grateful for that.'
