Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the No Trespass Due Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to add court review and 90-day limit to state no-trespass orders draws mixed response from Maine police and advocates
Summary
Senator Grochowski92s LD 2150 would require a written factual basis and limit state-issued no-trespass orders to 90 days unless the state petitions a court for extension using PFH procedures; State Police and corrections officials warned it may hinder operations while ACLU and civil-liberties witnesses supported due-process safeguards.
Sen. Smith Wohlgakowski presented LD 2150 as a measure to add consistent due process when the state or state entities bar people from state property, arguing that some Mainers were denied reasons and a path to challenge no-trespass orders. "This bill seeks to strike a careful and necessary balance between the safety and order of our public institutions and the fundamental due process rights of the individuals who interact with them," the sponsor said.
What the bill would do: LD 2150 would require notice with factual basis when a no-trespass order is issued that restricts access to state property or services, limit temporary restrictions to 90 days, and place the burden on the state to seek court approval (using the protection-from-harassment process) to extend restrictions beyond 90 days.
Support and questions: Civil-liberties groups including the ACLU argued the measure provides clarity and protections for people who may have limited access to the courts. Committee members asked whether the bill should use a higher evidentiary standard than "preponderance of the evidence," how venue should be set for judicial review and whether the PFH procedure is the right vehicle.
Opposition from law enforcement and corrections: Major Tyler Stevenson (Maine State Police) urged caution, saying the protection-from-harassment process traditionally arises from private victims, not the state, and raised procedural and resource concerns about having the State Police or AG petition courts as plaintiffs. The Department of Corrections likewise warned the bill is overly broad and could interfere with prison visitation and security policies.
Next steps: Sponsors and agency witnesses agreed to bring technical materials to a work session, including the Capitol Police form for no-trespass notices and clarifications on how existing policies operate. Several legislators suggested drafting amendments to narrow venue language, clarify which state entities are covered, and examine standards of proof.
