AB1097 replaces (or reorganizes) Penal Code §602 to list specific acts that constitute misdemeanor trespass and to attach tailored penalties and procedures to special locations. The text enumerates a range of conduct—from cutting timber and removing soil to occupying structures, driving vehicles on private property, and avoiding security screening—and builds in separate rules for airports, passenger vessel terminals, public transit facilities, neonatal units, domestic violence shelters, and Indian lands.
The bill matters because it converts a long, catch‑all trespass provision into a granular enforcement tool: it prescribes signage spacing, creates time-limited exclusions for persons convicted of offenses on tribal lands, specifies fines and jail ranges for security‑sensitive areas, and authorizes procedures for property owners to obtain repeated police assistance. That mix changes how property owners, health facilities, transit and port operators, tribes, and law enforcement will prevent and respond to unwanted entry.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill defines a wide set of specific acts that constitute misdemeanor trespass and creates separate offenses and penalties for sensitive locations (airports, passenger vessel terminals, public transit facilities, neonatal units, domestic violence shelters) and for avoiding security screening. It also authorizes tribal exclusion agreements and prescribes signage and administrative procedures for repeated police assistance requests.
Who It Affects
Private landowners and managers, hospitals with neonatal/maternity units, airport and port operators, public transit agencies, federally recognized tribes, and local law enforcement agencies will be directly affected. Agricultural operators, hotel managers, and domestic violence shelter providers also face new enforcement mechanisms or remedies.
Why It Matters
By differentiating locations and conduct, the text calibrates criminal penalties to perceived risk and operational needs—raising compliance and posting obligations for property holders and creating new prosecutorial options for law enforcement while also carving out labor and constitutional exceptions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB1097 lays out a detailed catalogue of actions that the legislature treats as willful trespass and makes each a misdemeanor unless a different subdivision provides otherwise. The catalogue covers classic property harms (cutting or carrying away timber, digging up soil or stone, destroying signage or fences), interference with agricultural operations and oyster beds, occupying buildings without consent, and driving vehicles onto private land closed to the public.
Some subsections add conduct elements—refusing to leave after request, tampering with locks, or discharging a firearm—to turn otherwise passive entry into a criminal act.
The text builds separate rules for zones with elevated security or safety concerns. For airports, passenger vessel terminals, and public transit facilities the bill makes unauthorized entry into operations areas or restricted zones an offense with low initial fines but escalating penalties for refusal to leave or repeat violations.
A parallel subsection criminalizes intentionally avoiding screening procedures in sterile airport/passenger terminal or transit facility areas, with monetary penalties for first offenses and misdemeanor exposure for repeat offenders or when the avoidance leads to evacuations or major disruptions.The bill also targets sensitive public‑health and victim‑safety locations. Entering or remaining in neonatal units, maternity wards, or birthing centers without lawful business and adequate posted notice is a distinct offense with its own fine schedule, potential jail time for refusals to leave, and a courtroom-ordered counseling condition for those granted probation.
Domestic violence shelters receive an express protection: refusing to leave upon the managing authority’s request is criminalized and the court may order restitution for relocation expenses incurred by the victim as a direct result.Two administrative mechanics stand out. First, the statute requires specific signage frequencies in various contexts (e.g., trespass signs for certain rural properties at intervals of not less than three per mile; fire‑prohibition signs at intervals not greater than one mile), which affects how owners document restricted areas.
Second, property owners can request repeated peace‑officer assistance through a notarized, time‑limited form (or electronically where accepted), allowing law enforcement to act without a new request each time during the covered period—subject to local limits and expiration on transfer of ownership. The provision preserves labor‑law protections for lawful union activity and carves exceptions for constitutionally protected conduct.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill recasts §602 as a list of specific misdemeanor trespass acts (timber/soil removal, entering animal‑raising lands, occupying structures, driving vehicles on private property closed to the public).
Signage thresholds are explicit: signs forbidding trespass on certain rural or enclosed lands must be displayed at intervals not less than three per mile; signs forbidding fire must be posted at intervals not greater than one mile.
Subdivision (t) lets owners, tribal governments, or law enforcement exclude a person convicted of a crime on that property; the exclusion duration depends on the conviction: violent felonies—no time limit; other felonies—up to five years; misdemeanors—up to two years; infractions—one year.
For airport/passenger terminal/public transit restricted areas, unauthorized entry can carry a $100 fine initially and up to six months’ county jail or $1,000 fine for refusal to leave or repeat offenses; avoidance of mandatory screening in sterile areas is punishable up to $500 for a first offense and can be a misdemeanor on repeat offenses.
Entering or remaining at a domestic violence shelter after a request to leave is a misdemeanor punishable up to one year in county jail, and courts may order defendants to pay relocation restitution for victims; neonatal unit violations carry their own fine/jail schedule and can include a counseling condition on probation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Enumerated property‑damage and resource‑removal offenses
These early subsections list traditional property harms that constitute trespass when done willfully—cutting or carrying off timber, digging soil or stone without license, injuring attachments to the freehold, and interfering with oyster beds. Practically, prosecutors can charge these actions as misdemeanors without proving a broader intent to invade; the focus is on willful commission of the specific act. Operators of shoreline, agricultural, and timber properties should note the authorization and enforcement risk attached to resource‑removal conduct.
Agricultural, animal‑raising, and cultivated lands—signage and conduct triggers
These provisions criminalize entering lands where animals are being raised for food, or entering lands under cultivation, when signs forbidding trespass are displayed. The statute requires signs at intervals not less than three per mile along exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails; the trespass becomes prosecutable when these posting thresholds are met and the entrant refuses to leave or commits specified acts (e.g., tearing down signs, tampering with locks, discharging firearms). For farm operators this creates a compliance checklist for signage and incident documentation to support criminal charges.
Police assistance requests and administrative forms
Property owners, agents, or lawful possessors can request peace‑officer assistance to deal with trespass in two ways: ad hoc requests each time, or a single notarized written request to cover a limited period (up to a locally determined period or 12 months, whichever is shorter). The statute permits electronic submission if the local agency accepts it. The authorization expires on transfer of ownership or change in possession. This mechanism reduces transaction friction for owners who repeatedly face trespass, but it requires notarization or adherence to local ordinances and creates recordkeeping obligations for both owners and law enforcement.
Tribal and criminal‑history exclusion regime
Subdivision (t) permits private property owners and federally recognized tribes to bar persons from specified private property, including Indian lands, after a notification by a peace or tribal police officer; the exclusion applies only to persons convicted of a crime on the specified property. The statute ties exclusion duration to offense class (violent felonies—permanent; other felonies—up to five years; misdemeanors—two years; infractions—one year) and allows tribes to contract with law enforcement to enforce tribal exclusion orders. This creates a statutory pathway for tribes to protect lands while establishing concrete temporal limits linked to conviction severity.
Security‑sensitive zones: airports, passenger terminals, transit facilities, and screening avoidance
Subdivision (u) criminalizes unauthorized entry into airport operations areas, passenger vessel terminal secured areas, and public transit facilities when notices restricting access appear at specified spacing (every 150 feet along exterior boundaries). Penalties start as nominal fines but increase to misdemeanor jail and larger fines for refusals to leave or repeat offenses. Subdivision (v) separately criminalizes intentionally avoiding screening when entering or reentering sterile areas; it imposes a civil fine for a first offense and escalates to misdemeanor exposure for repeats or conduct that causes evacuations or operational disruptions. Operators must follow defined posting standards and may rely on the statute to prosecute breaches of controlled areas, but federal aviation and maritime security rules will intersect with these state provisions.
Domestic violence shelters—prohibition and victim restitution
The bill makes it a misdemeanor to refuse to leave the premises of a domestic violence shelter after being asked to leave by the managing authority, punishable by up to one year in county jail. The court may order restitution to victims for relocation expenses incurred because of the trespass. This provision gives shelter managers a criminal enforcement option and provides a pathway for victims to recover costs caused by an offender’s presence.
Neonatal/maternity restricted access and courthouse/building screening
Subdivision (x) creates a distinct offense for knowingly entering or remaining in neonatal units, maternity wards, or birthing centers without lawful business when the area is posted to give reasonable notice; penalties range from a $100 infraction up to misdemeanor jail and fines for refusals to leave and repeat offenses, and probation can include court‑ordered counseling. Subdivision (y) mirrors the screening‑avoidance rule for courthouses and government buildings posted with notice, making intentional avoidance of inspection a prosecutable trespass. Healthcare and government facility operators should adopt posting and access control policies aligned with the statutory notice standards.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Property owners and agricultural operators: gain clearer statutory grounds to seek criminal enforcement for specific harms (soil/timber removal, animal theft/entry, fence destruction) and a notarized/ electronic process to obtain recurring police assistance, reducing friction in repeated trespass incidents.
- Hospitals and neonatal unit managers: receive a bespoke criminal prohibition and penalty framework to deter and remove unauthorized persons from high‑risk clinical areas, plus the option to seek counseling conditions for convicted offenders on probation.
- Federally recognized tribes: obtain an express statutory mechanism to bar individuals convicted of crimes on tribal lands and to contract with law enforcement to enforce exclusion orders, strengthening tribal control over access to tribal lands and contiguous private property.
- Airport, port, and public transit operators: can rely on state criminal penalties calibrated to restricted operations areas and screening avoidance to supplement federal security measures and deter unauthorized access.
- Domestic violence shelter providers and victims: shelters get explicit criminal remedies for refusals to leave, and victims can seek court‑ordered restitution for relocation costs caused by a trespassing offender.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local law enforcement agencies: must process notarized and electronic requests, enforce new exclusion orders, and handle additional misdemeanor prosecutions in security areas and sensitive facilities—creating workload and recordkeeping demands.
- Property owners and facility operators (airports, ports, transit agencies, farms, hospitals): must meet explicit posting intervals and maintain documentation to support prosecutions, and may need to staff for access control or sign maintenance.
- Individuals with prior convictions: face time‑limited or permanent exclusions from properties where they were convicted, and risk criminal charges for returning to excluded premises—effectively shrinking where some people may lawfully go.
- Courts and probation systems: will absorb litigation and probation supervision duties tied to counseling conditions for neonatal unit convictions and restitution hearings tied to domestic violence shelter incidents.
- Civil liberties and advocacy groups: may face increased litigation and resource burdens challenging potential overbroad application, particularly where notice, signage, or the line between lawful protest/union activity and trespass is disputed.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing property and safety interests against individual access and civil‑liberties protections: the bill tightens criminal tools to protect sensitive facilities and property owners, but those same tools—signage rules, exclusion orders, and criminal penalties for refusing to leave—risk criminalizing low‑level or constitutionally protected conduct and shifting enforcement burden to local police and courts with uneven safeguards for due process.
The bill stacks a granular enforcement structure on top of an already broad trespass framework, but implementation raises practical challenges. The specified signage intervals and posting standards will determine prosecutorial viability; ambiguous or poorly maintained signage risks either under‑enforcement or arbitrary charges.
Jurisdictions must adopt form templates, notarization practices, and electronic submission acceptance to operationalize recurring peace‑officer assistance, creating administrative burdens that vary by agency capacity.
Federal preemption and overlapping security regimes are another practical tension. Provisions for airports, passenger vessel terminals, and screening avoidance intersect with federal aviation and maritime security rules; operators and prosecutors will need to coordinate to avoid conflicting standards on what constitutes a restricted area or permitted refusal of screening.
Similarly, the tribal exclusion scheme raises questions about due process and enforcement boundaries—especially where exclusion is implemented off Indian lands or overlaps with state authority—and requires clear intergovernmental agreements. Finally, the statute’s many distinct offenses concentrate prosecutorial discretion: choices about when to criminally charge conduct that might be handled civilly or administratively could produce uneven outcomes and potential challenges on overcriminalization grounds.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.