The Scenario

Picture this: you’ve been away, and someone has moved into your house. You call the police for trespassing. When the officers arrive, the squatter says, “We had an agreement.” At that moment, the police shrug, tell you it’s a “civil matter,” and insist you go through the eviction process.

That squatter, by simply claiming a tenancy, can file hardship declarations, request extensions, and delay proceedings. By the time the dust settles, he’s lived rent-free for six to nine months.

The natural question arises: why does Idaho allow this?

Property Rights: The Cornerstone of the American System

Property rights are bedrock to American law. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Courts have always recognized that protecting property rights is essential for ordered liberty.

But here is the balancing act: just as an owner has rights to their real property, someone living there — whether as a tenant, guest, or squatter — has rights in their personal property. Even the simplest example makes this clear.

Suppose you let a friend stay in your spare room on a month-to-month basis. He knows the arrangement could be ended at any time. But imagine you give him five minutes’ notice to move out while the garbage truck is idling at the curb, and you start tossing his belongings in. That is not only unfair — it is a violation of his rights.

Courts have consistently recognized this. As the Idaho Supreme Court said in Thomas v. Campbell, 107 Idaho 398 (1984), even in landlord-tenant disputes, “the rights of possession and the rights in personal property must be vindicated by due process, not by self-help.” Self-help eviction — changing locks or trashing property without process — is disfavored almost everywhere in the United States.

The Commercial Illustration

Now expand this to commercial tenants. Imagine a factory or warehouse where a tenant has invested millions in machinery, infrastructure, or server farms. If the landlord could walk in and, without process, demand immediate removal, commerce would collapse.

The law recognizes this reality. In Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state replevin laws that allowed property seizure without prior notice and hearing. The Court held:

“Any significant taking of property by the State is within the purview of the Due Process Clause.”

Retailers, offices, and manufacturers almost always lease their space. If there were no process protecting their equipment and inventory, American business would be paralyzed. Thus, the law provides a structure: notice, hearing, and court-supervised eviction.

When Protections Are Abused

Unfortunately, the same protections designed to preserve commerce can be abused. Squatters exploit them, forcing owners into lengthy eviction proceedings. That is the price of due process: sometimes people take advantage. But courts have long judged it “a small price to pay” to prevent arbitrary deprivation of property.

The Canyon County Case

This issue came into sharp relief in Case No. CV14-25-06656, heard before Judge Thomas W. Whitney in Canyon County.

The plaintiff in that matter received an eviction notice on May 13, 2025. Within three days — while he was in custody — a new board installed itself and began removing his personal property. Trucks hauled off belongings, some to the scrap heap, others damaged beyond repair. Family and friends scrambled to salvage what they could.

Declarations from four separate witnesses attested to the illegal eviction and the mishandling of property. Yet when the complaint reached court, Judge Thomas Whitney dismissed all claims. Despite affidavits, despite sworn declarations, the court appeared uninterested. The protections of due process — the very safeguards meant to prevent unlawful dispossession — were not applied.

The irony is clear. In the short-term squatter scenario, the law bends over backward to protect personal property rights. But here, where unlawful removal was supported by witness declarations, the protections were ignored.

Why This Matters

The lesson is not just about squatters or landlords. It is about due process itself. Whether or not someone holds a lease, whether a boardroom resolution is authentic or manufactured, whether the occupant is a tenant, a guest, or a squatter — the law demands procedure.

Without it, anyone could seize another’s property and justify it with backdated paperwork or unverified notes. Courts have long warned against this. In Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965), the Supreme Court declared that due process requires “an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” That principle applies in evictions as much as in parental rights.

Conclusion: Due Process is the Price of Civilization

Idaho has been given a D-grade for integrity by the Center for Public Integrity, and the Better Government Association has consistently ranked Idaho near the bottom for ethics enforcement and transparency. Cases like this show why.

When courts allow short-term squatters to stall eviction, they are erring on the side of protecting personal property rights. That is tolerable — even necessary — for the health of commerce and civil society. But when those same courts dismiss declarations of illegal eviction, and when judges accept backdated documents as gospel, the balance tips from protection into corruption.

Property rights — real and personal — are only as strong as the courts that uphold them. Without meaningful due process, Idaho risks sliding further into the chaos that its “D-grade” already foreshadows.