Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Liberties topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would add due process for no-trespass orders on school, municipal property after widespread testimony
Summary
Lawmakers heard hours of testimony on HB1184, which would create a 24-hour verbal NTO safety valve and require a governing-body hearing to continue an order, with debate focused on safety, emergency response, confidentiality and the standard for extending orders.
Representative Juliet Harvey Bullia told the committee HB1184 would add due-process protections and clearer notice for no-trespass orders (NTOs) issued on municipal and school properties. The bill would allow an immediate verbal NTO to remain in effect for 24 hours (a "safety valve") but require a governing body hearing and a recorded decision if the order is to be extended.
Sponsor testimony emphasized that NTOs sometimes are issued without written notice, explanation or a clear path for redress, with consequences ranging from barred access to facilities to criminal penalties in some cases. Representative Bullia cited examples and ACLU materials describing cases where individuals lacked notice or ability to appeal.
Municipal representatives including the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) and city and school officials opposed elements of the bill as written, arguing the unanimous-governing-body threshold and mandatory in-person hearings could hamper timely safety responses in dynamic situations and create operational and safety risks for personnel. NHMA counsel Sarah Burke Cohen urged the committee to consider emergency exceptions and noted statutory appeal options exist under RSA 635:2 and superior-court review.
Supporters — including parents and advocates — related incidents where NTOs prevented participation in school meetings or education functions and urged more consistent written process and an appeal route. Testimony showed tension between protecting public-safety actors’ ability to respond rapidly and protecting due process for members of the public; members asked about notice mechanisms, nonpublic sessions to protect student privacy, timelines for scheduling hearings, and interaction with restraining orders.
