Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would add process, time limits and appeals for municipal and school no-trespass orders
Summary
Representative Juliet Harvey introduced HB 143 to require processes, limits and appeal rights when municipalities or school districts issue no-trespass orders on public property; municipal and law-enforcement groups raised logistical and safety concerns.
Representative Juliet Harvey told the Senate Judiciary Committee House Bill 143 is aimed at ensuring due process and narrow tailoring when municipalities and school districts issue no-trespass orders (NTOs) affecting public property, including schools.
Harvey described instances where people were banned from municipal services or school grounds and said many states and advocacy organizations recommend process safeguards. She cited guidance from the Massachusetts ACLU and examples from other states and cases that, she said, show the need for written notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Eric Power, president of the School District Governance Association, and other supporters argued the bill closes a gap on public-property NTOs: “There’s no review process. There’s no due process. There’s no time limit,” Power said, noting examples of lengthy bans from town services such as transfer stations.
Opponents including the New Hampshire Municipal Association and the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police urged caution. Sarah Burke Cohen of the Municipal Association said the bill’s hearing timeline and logistics could be difficult for small municipalities, and that police presence is often required at such hearings. She also raised concerns about privacy under RSA 91-A if a public hearing discusses individuals’ reputations.
Elizabeth Sargent, representing the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, listed enforcement questions the association wants clarified, such as whether an NTO remains active during an appeal and whether the filing of an appeal is an affirmative defense to arrest for trespass. Police representatives also questioned whether municipalities could meet required deadlines and whether hearings would be safe without additional resources.
Supporters said the bill includes a 90-day maximum term for most NTOs with a longer period for repeat offenses, and that governing bodies should have oversight when administrators or employees issue orders. The hearing closed with committee members and stakeholders noting a willingness to work further on logistics and safeguards.
