Judiciary committee advances bill to clarify review of state-issued notices restricting access to property

The Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary voted to advance LD 2150 as amended after reviewing a strike-and-replace amendment that clarifies how notices or communications restricting access to state property are treated and reviewed.

Eli Murphy of the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis told the committee the amendment removes earlier language and replaces the bill with text that treats a notice or communication issued pursuant to the section as "final agency action" subject to review under the ADC process (Title 5, chapter 375). Murphy said the draft requires that the notice be in writing, clarifies the geographic scope for the bill's data-collection requirements and tasks agencies to report back to the committee with authorization to file legislation if needed.

Senator Nicole Grohowski, the bill sponsor, described the latest draft as a narrowed, iterative approach that does not create a new review process but explicitly puts in statute the pathway for someone who believes a notice was issued in error to seek review. "I think this proposal represents an opportunity to put in writing in a clear place what the process is that everyone can expect to follow," Grohowski said.

Committee members asked technical questions about which state entities could issue notices and whether the amendment would grant new authority to agencies that previously lacked it. Murphy and Grohowski repeatedly stated the amendment was not intended to create new authority but to make clear that agencies that already have authority—such as the Department of Public Safety or Capitol Police—are included. Murphy also noted the statute as drafted would not itself give additional authority to agencies that do not already possess it.

Representative Rachel Henderson raised whether the Department of Corrections (DOC) should be excluded or treated differently, noting DOC sometimes issues restrictions directly to incarcerated residents and restrictions on visitors. Jill O’Brien, Director of Government Affairs for DOC, said the agency initially asked to be excluded but accepted the compromise and explained wardens sometimes impose communication or visitation restrictions (for example, to address repeated harassing calls or contraband). O’Brien cautioned that changes in language about whether an entity "issues" or merely "requests" a notice could affect current DOC practice because the department sometimes issues a notice itself.

Murphy told members that the draft does not change duration rules for no-trespass orders; under current practice he believes duration is typically one year, but the amendment clarifies that once notice constitutes final agency action a person may file an ADC petition to seek review. Chair Anne Carney added that a 30-day limit applies for filing that review.

Representative Henderson moved an "ought to pass as amended" recommendation, seconded by Representative Dylan Pugh. After committee discussion thanking the sponsor and staff, the clerk recorded a roll-call vote: eight members in the affirmative, two in the negative and four absent. The committee report was entered as "ought to pass as amended." Representative(s) Hagan and Poirier recorded dissenting votes on the motion.

The committee also discussed updating the bill title to reflect the narrower scope of the final amendment and scheduled a final language review with the Revisor's office.

What’s next: The amendment and the committee report will move forward for language review and inclusion in the committee's report; the bill sponsor and staff indicated they will return with final language and a proposed title.