(New Title) prohibiting tier III criminal offenders from being present in designated child safety zones absent a legitimate purpose.
SB 460 amends New Hampshire’s loitering or prowling law to create a new violation for certain registered sex offenders. Specifically, a person who is required to register as a tier II or tier III offender because of a sexual offense against a child under 13 would commit a violation if they knowingly appear within 1,000 feet of a childcare facility, church, school, or any area where a reasonable person would know minor children congregate, under circumstances that would warrant alarm for the safety of people nearby. The bill is framed as a public-safety measure and is described as a request of the Department of Safety.
The bill also sets an effective date of January 1, 2027. As introduced, it would add a new paragraph to RSA 644:6, expanding the state’s loitering or prowling offense rather than creating a separate standalone offense. The fiscal note indicates no expected revenue impact, but it anticipates indeterminable costs to the judicial and correctional systems, including possible effects on prosecution, incarceration, probation, and parole, with similar potential impacts on county and local governments.
SB 460 would amend RSA 644:6, New Hampshire’s loitering or prowling statute, by adding a new offense category tied to sex-offender registration status and proximity to child-centered or child-occupied locations. It would affect tier II and tier III registrants whose underlying offense was a sexual offense against a child under 13, and it would expose them to criminal liability for knowingly being within 1,000 feet of specified places under alarming circumstances. The bill could increase enforcement activity, prosecutions, and correctional-system workload, while also potentially affecting how registered offenders move in public spaces near schools, childcare facilities, churches, and other areas where children gather.
The available voting history suggests the bill has generated mixed but meaningful support rather than unanimous agreement. A motion to adopt an amendment passed 224-128, indicating substantial backing for strengthening or refining the proposal, while a motion to table the bill failed 146-206, suggesting the majority of members did not want to set it aside. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a serious public-safety measure with enough support to advance, though not without significant opposition.
The main point of contention is the balance between child safety and the scope of restrictions placed on registered offenders. Supporters appear to view the bill as a targeted way to prevent high-risk offenders from lingering near places where children are present, while opponents likely object to the breadth of the 1,000-foot restriction, the inclusion of churches and broad “areas where minor children congregate,” and the use of a loitering/prowling framework to regulate presence rather than conduct. The amendment and tabling votes suggest lawmakers debated how far the restriction should go and whether the bill was appropriately tailored.