Schools, libraries and law enforcement clash over bill to formalize no‑trespass orders on public property

Representative Juliet Harvey Bully introduced House Bill 1184 to establish a standard process for no‑trespass orders (NTOs) on municipal and school property, including written notice, defined durations, a right to a hearing and an appeal route. The sponsor said current practice often leaves individuals without clear notice of duration or any process to contest an order and presented examples to illustrate four common kinds of incidents: violent threats, unpopular opinions that result in exclusion, personal conflicts, and 'wrong place/wrong time' verbal orders.

The committee then heard extensive testimony both supporting and opposing the measure. A school assistant superintendent described an incident involving a convicted sex offender on campus and urged a narrow carve‑out or amendment so schools can protect students quickly without waiting weeks for board action. Family advocacy and a school district governance representative supported the bill as a way to end indefinite NTOs on public property.

Opponents included the New Hampshire Association of Counties, the New Hampshire School Board Association, the New Hampshire Municipal Association, Manchester's police chief and the New Hampshire Library Association. Criticisms centered on the bill's 72‑hour emergency period before a governing body must meet to extend an order, the three‑fifths body vote required to extend the order (which some witnesses said would be impossible for small county boards), the potential for lapses over weekends or holidays, and duplication or conflict with existing criminal trespass statute and judicial remedies. Manchester's police chief said routine local practice depends on operational flexibility and warned the draft imposes procedural hurdles that could reduce public safety.

Several witnesses asked for amendments: extend the emergency window or permit extension by administrative action, change the supermajority requirement to a simple majority, and clarify which entity counts as the "governing body" for different public entities. The committee closed public testimony after noting two online supporters and 43 opposed; members indicated further work with sponsors and stakeholders rather than immediate passage.

The committee did not vote on HB1184 at the hearing and directed sponsors to consult with stakeholders about drafting changes.