Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sex Offender Geofencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ACLU warns of vagueness as committee weighs restricting registered offenders near schools; childcare providers press for protection
Summary
Child‑care directors and the state police support a bill to bar some registered sex offenders from lingering near schools and day‑care centers; the ACLU and others warned the draft is legally vague and may be unconstitutional without narrowing.
Lawmakers and witnesses sparred over the scope and constitutionality of SB 460, a bill that would bar certain registered offenders from knowingly remaining within a set distance of schools and child‑care centers without a defined legitimate purpose.
Lieutenant Mary Katterburgger of the New Hampshire State Police told the committee the measure was prompted by repeated incidents — particularly in Claremont — where registered sex offenders repeatedly sat near child‑care playgrounds, prompting staff to bring children inside. “They were sitting on a bench watching children when they’ve offended a child under the age of 13,” she said, urging a narrowly tailored remedy.
Child‑care directors described the practical impact. Molly Trembley, a director from Claremont, said her program has called police about men who returned repeatedly and made staff and parents uneasy; she described multiple incidents and called for a statutory tool that reduces repeated disruption to programming.
But the ACLU cautioned the committee that the bill as drafted raises serious vagueness and free‑movement concerns. “That law is under challenge; my office is involved in that challenge arguing that those provisions are vague and thus violate due process,” said Jill Bissette of the ACLU of New Hampshire, who urged caution and suggested narrower alternatives such as focusing on supervised conditions, tighter distance limits, or stronger trespass remedies.
Legislators asked witnesses for options to narrow the draft — suggestions included reducing a 1,000‑foot buffer to 100–250 feet, limiting coverage to very young children and sites when in session, or defining a clearer judicial safety valve and lists of enumerated ‘legitimate purposes’ such as parental presence, employment, or court‑ordered activity.
What’s next: The committee signaled appetite for amendments to narrow the scope and address constitutional concerns. Witnesses and legislators agreed the underlying safety concern is real, but legal counsel advised careful redrafting to survive judicial scrutiny.
