Lawmakers split over where to place SB 460’s restrictions on registered offenders near schools and daycares

The committee returned to consider Senate Bill 460 and deadlocked over a core drafting question: whether the measure’s prohibition on certain registered offenders appearing near schools and daycares should remain framed as a loitering offense or be placed under the registration/offender statute.

Senator Abbas, who explained technical problems in the bill, said the House draft put the restriction under the registration section while an alternative placed it under the loitering statute. "The House version, respectfully, it puts it under the registration section," he said, arguing that registration-based language provides clear prior notice to affected registrants and avoids the vagueness challenge that has targeted loitering laws.

A committee lawmaker pressed the constitutional risk, citing recent ACLU litigation. "Loitering just does not fit. It is not loitering," the lawmaker said, arguing that courts have questioned loitering provisions for vagueness and that retooling loitering to reach registrants could be overturned and leave daycares unprotected.

Members discussed specifics the draft would cover. Senator Abbas read proposed language that would create an additional section making it a violation for someone required to register as a tier 2 or tier 3 registrant for certain offenses to knowingly appear within 1,000 feet of listed locations under circumstances that "warrant alarm for the safety of the person in the vicinity." He listed schools and daycares among the covered places and said the draft had been shaped by examples from other states.

Lawmakers debated enforcement trade-offs. Those favoring the registration approach said it is "much cleaner" for police because it relies on prior notice — the registrant had been informed where they may not go — rather than requiring officers to establish the loitering statute’s more fact-specific "alarm" elements on the spot. Opponents said that moving many offender-specific prohibitions into the registration section could have sweeping effects for other laws and that police might still struggle to enforce location restrictions if they do not immediately know a person’s registrant status.

Members also discussed covered venues and exemptions. The transcript shows debate about whether to list specific sites or to rely on broader statutory citations for school property (members cited a school-property provision referenced in the transcript as "193-D:1-5") and whether to include places of worship; speakers reported churches preferred to be excluded and cautioned listing houses of worship could invite constitutional scrutiny.

On penalties, the committee discussed language in which a first offense would be an unclassified misdemeanor and repeat offenses could be elevated to a felony, though members said they had not finalized the crime classification or penalties.

The committee did not reconcile the Senate and House positions during the session. "We are not gonna be able to come to an agreement today," one lawmaker said. The panel adjourned discussion on SB 460 without a vote and no final text was adopted; members suggested pursuing a broader statutory cleanup or comprehensive approach later if needed.

The hearing included repeated references to litigation strategies and to civil-rights groups' challenges; the Department of Justice was reported to have testified in prior hearings at the House level but had not appeared before this committee. The committee did not set a subsequent date for reconciliation during the recorded session.

Next steps were not specified in the transcript.