All bills

HB 1139-FN

relative to criminal trespass on secured premises.

Filed 2026 · Killed · Criminal Justice and Public Safety · Crimes, Crim.Proc. & Corr.

Official record at gencourt.state.nh.us ↗

Open this bill in the searchable view →  ·  Follow this bill by RSS

On the record

Quoted from the General Court bill status page, not worked out from the docket.

StatusHOUSE
In the HouseINEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Introduced1/7/2026
Floor date2/12/2026
LSR number2319
Local government impactno
Committee codeH26

Bill text (PDF) ↗

Where it stands

House: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE

Every floor vote on this bill was a voice or division vote, so there is no record of how individual legislators voted.

A bill goes on the consent calendar when the committee vote was unanimous or nearly so, and any members who dissented did not object to placing it there. It then passes without floor debate. Ten members may file a petition to pull a bill off the consent calendar and have it debated and voted on separately.

Sponsors

Aylward, Deborah(R) Merr 5, Fracht, David(D) Graf 16
Prime sponsor in bold. From the General Court sponsor file.

What happened

Every action recorded in the official docket, in order. Each line ends with the journal or calendar that recorded it; where we have the document, that citation links to it.

Votes

Roll call tallies and individual votes from the General Court roll call files. Presiding, excused and absent are shown separately: one member presides over each House roll call and does not vote except to break a tie.

Inexpedient to Legislate

February 12, 2026 · House · None–None, adopted

Decided on a voice vote. Only the outcome was recorded — there is no count of how any member voted.

Committee reports

Reproduced from the House Calendar in the committee’s own words.

Committee — INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE

Rep. Terry Roy

The committee opposes this bill because it amends the definition of “secured premises” for purposes of criminal trespass in a way that adds complexity without improving protection for property owners or clarity for the public. Current criminal trespass statutes already allow prosecution when a person knowingly enters or remains on posted, fenced, or otherwise clearly restricted property without authorization, and courts and law enforcement understand and apply these standards in day to day practice. By layering new language and conditions onto the definition of “secured premises,” the bill risks creating ambiguity about what is or is not covered, rather than making the law more straightforward. The bill is also unnecessary because the problems it purports to solve are already addressed under existing statutes and case law. If there are occasional disputes at the margins, those are better resolved through interpretation and application of the current law than by rewriting a core definition in a way that could unsettle settled expectations for landowners, businesses, and the public. In practice, the proposed language could generate more litigation over technical questions of whether a specific property configuration meets the new “secured premises” criteria, instead of focusing on the simple and familiar question of whether the defendant knew they had no right to be there. Vote 11-0.

Hearings and recordings

Recordings are the General Court’s own, on YouTube. Start times are estimates unless stated otherwise, and the player opens early.

Page generated 2026-09-03 from data published by the New Hampshire General Court. Granite Record is an independent project, not affiliated with the General Court. The official record always takes precedence. Corrections: [email protected]