Relating to the authority of a county to restrict sex offenders from child safety zones in the unincorporated area of the county; creating a criminal offense.
Summary
HB 3087 authorizes a county commissioners court to adopt an order restricting certain registered sex offenders from entering, being on, or coming within a specified distance of child safety zones in the unincorporated areas of the county. The bill applies only to registered sex offenders assigned numeric risk level two or three under the sex offender screening tool used in Texas, and it defines child safety zones to include places where children commonly gather, such as schools, day-care facilities, playgrounds, youth centers, public swimming pools, and video arcades. Churches are expressly excluded from the definition.
The county order may set a buffer zone of up to 1,000 feet and may include procedures for exemptions. The bill also requires an exemption for offenders who already lived within the restricted area before the order was adopted, limited to access to and occupancy of the residence. A violation of a county order adopted under the bill would be a Class C misdemeanor, and the bill includes an affirmative defense for legitimate purposes such as transporting a child the person may legally accompany or traveling to and from work.
Impact
HB 3087 would add a new section to the Local Government Code giving counties a specific, limited authority to regulate the presence of certain registered sex offenders in unincorporated areas near child-focused locations. It would create a new local enforcement mechanism and criminal penalty for violating a county order, while also tying the restriction to existing sex offender registration and risk-assessment law under Chapter 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bill would affect registered sex offenders at risk levels two and three, county commissioners courts, and local law enforcement in counties that choose to adopt such orders.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s subject matter and its advancement out of committee to Calendars, the measure appears to have been treated as a public-safety bill aimed at protecting children in county-controlled areas. The absence of recorded dissent in the provided context suggests at least procedural support, but the materials do not show the full range of member views.
Contention
The main policy issue is the balance between child safety and restrictions on where registered sex offenders may lawfully go, especially in unincorporated county areas. Potential points of contention include the breadth of the 1,000-foot exclusion zone, the decision to apply the restriction only to risk levels two and three, and the need to exempt existing residents who already live within the restricted area. Another possible issue is local control: the bill gives counties discretion to adopt these orders rather than imposing a statewide mandate, which may be viewed as either a strength or a limitation depending on the perspective of county officials, advocates for victims, and civil liberties or reentry stakeholders.
Relating to the authority of certain counties to restrict sex offenders from child safety zones in certain portions of the unincorporated area of the county; creating a criminal offense.
Relating to prohibiting sex offenders from residing or loitering within a certain distance of certain locations where children commonly gather and from participating in certain Halloween activities; creating a criminal offense.