Pennsylvania House Bill HR184

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/9/25
• Refer: 4/9/25

Caption

Directing the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to conduct a study evaluating Pennsylvania's trespassing laws, including the enforcement of those laws, with the goal of effectively deterring trespassing on private property.

Impact

If successfully passed and implemented, HR184 could lead to significant reforms in Pennsylvania's approach to trespassing offenses. By addressing how these laws are applied and their current efficacy, the study could inform lawmakers on whether existing laws adequately protect property owners and whether any changes need to be instituted to enhance legal deterrents against trespassing. The findings of this study would be reported to various committees, including those overseeing judiciary matters and game fisheries, indicating a structured approach to potential policy changes.

Summary

House Resolution 184 (HR184) seeks to direct the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to undertake a comprehensive study of Pennsylvania's trespassing laws. The goal of this initiative is to evaluate current laws regarding trespassing, particularly how they are enforced and their effectiveness in deterring unauthorized entry onto private property. This study would lay the groundwork for potential legislative recommendations aimed at improving these laws.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding HR184 appears to be constructive. Supporters of the resolution understand the importance of safeguarding private property rights and recognize the necessity for a thorough evaluation of the relevant laws. However, as with many legislative proposals, there could be some contention regarding the implications of potential changes that emerge from the study’s findings. Stakeholders may have differing views on how to strike a balance between property rights and public access.

Contention

Notably, the resolution does not inherently seek to amend existing laws but focuses purely on research. Therefore, any contention may arise post-study when recommendations for changes are discussed, depending on whether those changes are perceived to favor property owners' rights over public access rights or vice versa. Furthermore, the involvement of multiple committees suggests that diverse perspectives will be engaged in the discussions that follow the study, which may heighten both interest and scrutiny on how future actions will unfold.