Committee adopts 500-foot child-safety zones for highest-risk registrants in HB 460

The Criminal Justice and Public Safety committee voted to adopt an amendment to House Bill 460 that establishes straight-line 500-foot "child-safety zones" measured from property boundaries around schools, day-care centers, public parks, playgrounds, swimming pools and active school bus stops and applies only to level‑3 (highest-risk) registered sex offenders.

Representative Sher, who moved the first amendment and later participated in debate on the substitute, described the measure’s reach: “it makes it a violation for a tier 2 or tier three sexual offender ... if the offender knowingly remains in an area within 100 ft of a school or child care facility after being requested to leave by [a] law enforcement officer unless the offender is engaged in constitutionally protected conduct,” and said the amendment moved the prohibition out of the loitering statute and into the sexual‑offender chapter (RSA 651‑B) to better fit existing registration rules.

Supporters framed the adopted substitute (amendment 1286) as narrower and more targeted than earlier versions. The amendment requires written notice of the prohibition at registration, allows several affirmative defenses — including transporting one’s own child, engaging in a protected activity such as voting, and direct travel to a residence or employment established before the law’s effective date — and specifies that the distance be measured in a straight line from outer property boundaries to reduce ambiguity. After a roll call the clerk announced a tally of "94," and the chair declared the amendment adopted.

Opponents raised constitutional and implementation concerns. Representative Muse warned that the 500‑foot rule could "put somebody in jail for three and a half years who never even sees the person ... they're accused of victimizing" and noted the amendment does not require a child to be present for a violation. The chair responded that the zone is a protective rule and said, "The victim is the people of the state of New Hampshire when they violate this law."

Lawmakers also debated notice and burden-of-proof language. Some members urged clearer, explicit provisions that require law enforcement to provide written notice when an offender moves into the state or is released from custody; supporters pointed to existing interstate registration procedures and said the amendment’s written‑notice and signage language would be within the Department of Safety’s rulemaking authority.

Following adoption of the amendment, the committee voted that the bill is "ought to pass as amended" (OTPA). The chair moved OTPA and Representative Pru seconded; the clerk again announced a tally of "94." Members said they expected additional floor amendments and continuing negotiation on precise notice language and penalty gradations before the measure reaches the full chamber.

The committee’s action narrows the bill to apply to the highest-risk registrants and adds formal notice, measurement and defense provisions to address prior constitutional and practicality concerns. The bill will proceed to the next committee or floor stage with the committee recommendation that it ought to pass as amended.