Prohibiting the posting of land not owned by the poster.
Summary
HB 87 amends New Hampshire’s criminal trespass/posting laws to prohibit a person from placing a sign or poster restricting physical activity on land when that person knows, or has no reasonable basis to believe, that they have a legal right to do so. The bill targets unauthorized posting of property and is framed as an enforcement measure against posting land not owned by the poster.
Under the bill, a person who knowingly posts such a sign or poster on land they do not have the right to post would commit a class B misdemeanor. The bill also establishes specific fines for this offense: $200 for a first offense and $500 for a second or subsequent offense, overriding the general sentencing provisions for those fine amounts. The act is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026.
Impact
HB 87 would amend RSA 635:5, which currently addresses penalties for removing, defacing, or destroying signs or property and related posting rules. The bill adds a new criminal penalty for unauthorized posting of land, creating a clearer statutory basis for prosecuting improper placement of no-trespassing or activity-restriction signs. Because it changes a criminal penalty, the fiscal note anticipates possible impacts on judicial and correctional systems, though exact costs are indeterminable; state and local revenues are expected to remain unchanged.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text and fiscal note, the measure appears to be a targeted public-safety and property-rights enforcement bill rather than a broad policy change. The fiscal note’s neutral assessment suggests the bill was treated as a routine criminal-law adjustment with limited fiscal effects.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is whether the bill appropriately criminalizes unauthorized posting and whether the fixed fines are the right enforcement tool. Supporters would likely emphasize property rights, clarity in land posting rules, and deterrence against misuse of signs that restrict access or activity. Opponents, if any, might question whether the conduct is already covered by existing law, whether the penalty is proportionate, or whether the bill could create enforcement disputes over what constitutes a reasonable basis for believing one has posting authority.