This bill amends RCW 9A.52.105 and 9A.52.115 and adds a new legislative finding. The finding states the Legislature intends to strengthen the state's anti-squatting law by expanding coverage to include some former tenants who no longer occupy premises under a valid rental agreement and by authorizing law enforcement to remove alleged squatters without delay in some circumstances. Substantive changes let a peace officer, on receipt of a declaration signed under penalty of perjury in the form prescribed in RCW 9A.52.115, remove persons from residential premises immediately (with or without arrest) and order them to remain off the premises or face arrest for criminal trespass. The officer must have probable cause to believe criminal trespass under RCW 9A.52.070 occurred before exercising authority to arrest or exclude, and must give occupants a reasonable opportunity to present credible evidence that they are tenants, legal occupants, or guests/invitees. The declaration form is prescribed in statute, must be initialed for each required element, and must contain specified factual statements such as owner/agent status, lack of authorization to occupy, that the persons are not occupying under a valid rental agreement, that they have not been on title in the last 12 months, a demand to vacate, and acknowledgements about possible civil liability and statutory prohibitions; the form also includes an indemnity and a statement that officers acting in good faith are not liable. The bill creates procedural changes (a required declaration form and new removal procedure), clarifies limited immunity for law enforcement acting in good faith, and identifies potential criminal penalties for false statements on the declaration (possible gross misdemeanors under RCW 9A.72.040 or RCW 9A.76.175). It also expressly says the changes do not limit rights under RCW 61.24.060. The text references several other statutes (RCW 61.24.005, 61.24.060, 59.18.230, 59.18.290, 4.24.355, 9A.52.070) but those definitions and provisions are not reproduced here; no effective date or additional enforcement or appeal procedures are provided in the extracted facts.

If enacted, the bill gives property owners or their authorized agents a standardized, sworn "request to remove trespasser(s)" form they must initial and sign under penalty of perjury to ask police to remove and bar people from residential property without delay. Peace officers may act on that declaration and remove or exclude people (with or without arrest) but must have probable cause for criminal trespass in residential real property and must give occupants a reasonable chance to present credible evidence that they are lawful tenants, guests, or invitees. Making false statements on the form can be charged as gross misdemeanors, and the declarant may face civil action for false statements. The people most affected are law enforcement (given clearer authority and an explicit indemnity for actions taken in good faith, but also a duty to consider occupants’ proof and to establish probable cause), property owners/agents (who gain a faster tool to have people removed but take criminal and civil risk if they swear falsely), and occupants or former tenants (who may be removed more quickly, including former tenants who no longer occupy under a valid rental agreement, though the bill preserves rights for anyone entitled to occupy under a rental agreement). Key practical limits remain unclear here because the bill relies on definitions and protections in other statutes (for example the exact meaning of "residential real property" and tenant protections under RCW 61.24.060) and no effective date or implementation timeline is provided in the extracted text.