Relating to creating the criminal offense of trespass on or near school or day-care center property.
HB 308 would create a new criminal offense for trespassing on school or day-care center property, and in some cases on nearby public property within 250 feet of that property, when the person’s conduct is disruptive, threatening, or harassing to students, employees, or school/day-care operations. The bill applies to both public and private elementary and secondary schools, as well as day-care centers, and defines the covered property to include land and buildings owned or leased by the facility where a sponsored activity is taking place.
To commit the offense, a person must be on the covered property or nearby public property, lack a legitimate custody- or responsibility-based reason to be there or written permission from an authorized representative, receive a reasonable request to leave from school or security personnel, and then fail to depart. The offense is classified as a Class A misdemeanor, and the bill expressly allows prosecution under this new section, another applicable Penal Code section, or both if the conduct violates multiple laws.
HB 308 would add Section 30.055 to Chapter 30 of the Texas Penal Code, expanding criminal trespass law in the school and child-care context. It would create a new offense covering not only entry onto school or day-care property, but also certain disruptive conduct on adjacent public property within 250 feet, potentially affecting parents, visitors, protesters, and others near school grounds. The bill also cross-references the Human Resources Code definition of day-care center and takes effect December 1, 2025.
Based on the bill text and the absence of committee testimony or recorded votes, the available record suggests the bill was introduced as a public-safety and school-order measure rather than a controversial policy proposal with documented debate. Its structure indicates an intent to give schools and day-care centers stronger tools to address disruptive or threatening behavior near their facilities. No formal vote history or transcript is available here to show support or opposition, so the overall sentiment can only be characterized as neutral-to-supportive from the bill’s protective framing.
The main potential point of contention is the bill’s reach beyond the school fence line to public property within 250 feet, which could raise concerns about how broadly disruptive or harassing conduct is interpreted and whether the law could affect lawful presence on streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public spaces near schools. Another possible issue is the interaction with existing trespass or disorderly-conduct laws, since the bill allows prosecution under this section, another section, or both. No specific objections or supporters are documented in the provided committee materials.