Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
House adopts amended child-safety-zone language for tier‑3 offenders after heated debate
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers debated and amended Senate Bill 460 to create child safety zones (parks, playgrounds, bus stops, daycares, public pools) and expand prohibitions on tier‑3 offenders, including elevating violations to felony-level penalties; critics warned the text was too broad and possibly unconstitutional.
Representative Sherr, speaking against the amendment, warned that the committee-drafted language went “way too broad,” saying a person covered by the statute could face a class B felony for merely being within 500 feet of a child-safety zone even when no child was present. “That’s the fatal flaw,” Sherr said, and suggested adding a requirement that a child be present to avoid overbreadth and vagueness.
Questioning from other members focused on the bill’s scope and real-world consequences. Representative Gagne asked for clarification about the definition of a “tier‑3 offender,” and committee members explained that it refers to individuals convicted of sexual assault against a child under 13 (as stated in committee testimony). Representative McFarland and others raised constitutional and enforcement concerns and compared this proposal to previously rejected bills.
Supporters, including Representative Roy, framed the bill as prioritizing children’s safety and said any inconvenience to offenders is outweighed by protections for vulnerable young people. Roy told the House he would “rather have the children be free to go to the playground” without worrying about the presence of level‑3 offenders.
The House considered a floor amendment (1286h) that narrowed or clarified some provisions; after division and roll‑call votes the amendment was adopted and the main motion (ought to pass as amended) moved forward. The bill then passed the floor as amended and was recorded as adopted for referral and further processing.
What happens next: The amended SB 460 moves forward under the adopted language; sponsors and opponents signaled a need for continued scrutiny of constitutional questions and precise definitions (for example, whether a child must be present for the prohibition to apply).
