Georgia House Bill HB363

Georgia 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/10/25

Caption

Crimes and offenses; criminal trespass; include religious worship and observance or acknowledging the death of an individual

Summary

House Bill 363 amends Georgia’s criminal trespass statute to add a specific offense for knowingly entering and remaining on another person’s property and willfully and maliciously interrupting or disturbing an assembly gathered for religious worship or for observing or acknowledging the death of an individual. The conduct must be done in a way that a reasonable person would view as threatening to the safety of those assembled. In effect, the bill creates a targeted trespass-based protection for funerals, memorials, vigils, and religious services. The bill does not broadly rewrite trespass law; instead, it adds a new subsection to Code Section 16-7-21 and leaves the rest of the statute intact. It also includes a standard repeal of conflicting laws. The practical effect would be to give law enforcement and prosecutors an additional basis to charge disruptive conduct at protected gatherings when the conduct occurs on private property and meets the statute’s intent and threat-related requirements.

Impact

HB363 would expand Georgia’s criminal trespass statute by expressly covering disruptive intrusions at religious services and death-related observances, such as funerals or memorial gatherings. This would affect individuals who enter private property without authority and intentionally disrupt these assemblies in a threatening manner, and it would provide a clearer statutory basis for enforcement in those settings. The bill would amend O.C.G.A. § 16-7-21 and create a new subsection defining this conduct as criminal trespass.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and respect-for-assembly bill, with no recorded committee debate or votes showing opposition or support. The caption and language suggest a protective purpose aimed at shielding religious worship and mourning-related gatherings from intentional disruption. Because there is no transcript or voting history provided, there is no documented legislative controversy in the available record.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the scope of the protected gatherings and the threshold for criminal liability. Supporters would likely view the bill as a necessary safeguard for religious congregations and grieving families, while critics might question whether the language could be applied too broadly to expressive conduct near sensitive events. The statute’s requirement that the conduct be willful, malicious, and reasonably perceived as threatening to safety appears designed to limit overreach, but those standards could still be debated in practice.