Criminal Justice and Public Safety committee advances multiple bills; debate centers on false-report, no-trespass and property-posting measures

The Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee held an executive session where members voted on multiple bills, advancing several measures and recessing others for further language work. The meeting included detailed debate on a proposal to make knowingly filing false complaints about police a misdemeanor, an amended bill to create an appeals process for no-trespass orders, and a measure to bar people from posting land that is not theirs.

The committee opened executive sessions on a range of bills and recessed several for further stakeholder work, including House Bill 59 and the proposal on body-worn cameras. More than a half dozen bills received roll-call votes during the session; some passed on party-line or near-party-line margins, while others were sent to the consent calendar.

The most contested measures drew sustained discussion. On a bill that would create a criminal penalty for knowingly making a false report about a police officer, Representative Rhodes, the bill mover, argued the change was necessary because a false allegation can carry lasting professional and reputational harm: "This would basically, create a misdemeanor level if you make a knowingly make a false report about misconduct of an officer that you know that is false." Supporters said the measure recognizes the burdens placed on officers who face investigations after allegations. Opponents warned the provision could chill reporting of misconduct; Representative Muse said the bill "could very well discourage people from reporting police misconduct in the first place," and questioned whether existing statutes on falsification already cover the conduct.

Members also debated a bill addressing no-trespass orders that came before the committee with a replace-all amendment. The amendment added a written process for recipients to request a hearing, allowed for limited extensions and revocations of orders, and set a higher threshold for revocation. Supporters said the change provided needed procedural safeguards; author of the amendment said it "gives a process for a person if they do receive [a no-trespass order]," including the ability to request a hearing. Critics — notably members who had heard testimony from local school boards — said the amendment did not address all public-hearing concerns, including whether hearings could be held during the next regularly scheduled public meeting and whether the amendment's two-thirds revocation requirement went beyond what local bodies requested.

On property-posting, the committee considered a bill that would make it unlawful for people to post hunting or no-trespass signs on land they do not own. A sponsor described the bill as protecting property owners from activists posting signs to deter hunters on land that is not theirs; Representative Harry Gathroy said he objected to the bill’s initial penalty structure and urged replacing a class B misdemeanor with a lesser civil violation.

Other items on the agenda included bills about speed-enforcement funding, a proposal viewed as an "inexpedient to legislate" motion concerning highway patrol enhanced zones, bilingual or technical changes to military protective-order evidence, and a measure requiring law-enforcement officers to use an expanded consent form when requesting consent to search houses or other property. Several bills were recessed so sponsors could continue work with stakeholders, including language from the Department of Defense and the Office of Legislative Services.

Votes at a glance

- HB 87 (posting land not owned by poster): Motion "ought to pass" carried, vote 9–6. Several members expressed concern the bill’s initial penalty (a class B misdemeanor) was too severe; at least two members asked for a violation-level penalty instead of a misdemeanor.

- HB 245 (speed-enforcement fund language): Committee moved the bill as "expedient to legislate"; motion carried 10–5.

- HB 500 (enhanced state police patrol zones): Motion to find the bill Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) carried 15–0.

- HB 109 (false reports about police): Motion "ought to pass" carried 9–6. Supporters argued for a penalty for knowingly false reports; opponents raised concerns the measure could deter legitimate complaints.

- HB 143 (no-trespass orders; amendment 20250408H): Committee adopted the sponsor’s replace-all amendment and passed the bill as amended, vote 10–5. The amendment added an appeal/hearing process, options for extension or revocation of orders, and clarified thresholds for revocation.

- HB 62 (military protective orders admissibility): Committee adopted amendment 0282H addressing evidentiary use of military protective orders and passed the bill as amended, vote 16–0.

- HB 640 (quarterly federal law-enforcement reporting to the Attorney General): Motion carried 9–7; members debated cost, burden on the attorney general’s office and whether federal agencies would comply.

- HB 162 (expanded consent-to-search notice to include houses/property): Motion "ought to pass" carried 16–0; sponsor said the measure extends an existing consent-to-search form to other property types and that some departments already use similar language.

What’s next

Several bills were recessed for additional language work and will be taken up again next Wednesday. Committee members asked for minority and majority report assignments on items that passed with opposition. The committee also placed multiple items on the consent calendar where there was no objection.

The session closed after members took votes and set deadlines for drafting minority reports where required.