This story was originally produced by the Concord Monitor. NHPR is republishing it in partnership with the Granite State News Collaborative.
New limits on how local governments issue no-trespass orders on public property faced a wall of opposition this week at its Senate hearing from law enforcement officials, school representatives and municipal leaders.
State Rep. Juliet Harvey-Bolia, the prime sponsor of House Bill 1184, said it is “very loose” how schools, towns, cities, and other public entities issue no-trespass orders. She said in some cases, these orders are given verbally and remain in effect for years.
“When somebody gets issued one of these no trespass orders at a town or a school, it’s essentially the same as if they were on private property, and you can ban them forever without knowing the appeal process,” she said.
Under the bill, which has already cleared the House, a no-trespass order would take effect immediately but automatically expire within 72 hours unless the issuing body moves to extend it.
Keeping someone banned from public property beyond that window would require a formal vote, at least three-fifths approval by the governing body, taken at a properly noticed public meeting, or in a non-public session if one is requested.
Critics said 72 hours is too tight a window.
Kellan Barbee, representing the New Hampshire Association of Counties, said requiring a public meeting within that timeframe is problematic. If an emergency order is issued on a Friday before a long weekend, he said, the clock would run out before a meeting could even be called.
“At the same time, the order simply lapses regardless of whether the threat still exists or not,” he said. “This also raises real public safety concerns.”
In 2024, parents in Bow wore pink armbands to a girls’ soccer match to silently protest the inclusion of transgender athletes in girls’ sports. School staff ordered them to remove the armbands or leave.
For supporters of the bill, it’s exactly that kind of case that makes reform necessary.
Rep. Joseph Barden argued that no-trespass orders for municipalities have drifted far from their original purpose, becoming “a weapon, not a tool to protect” people.
Law enforcement officers from the Manchester police department said that while the bill intends to establish fairness and due process, it would create operational challenges for municipalities in maintaining safety.
“This bill shifts the burden away from the individual whose behavior created the issue and places it squarely on the municipality,” said Peter Marr, Manchester police chief. “It requires repeated justification of decisions that are already based on observed conduct and introduces procedural hurdles that may discourage officers and officials from acting when they should.”
