The Legislative Budget Board (LBB) has determined that HB 353 would not have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The bill creates a new Class A misdemeanor offense for trespassing on or near school or day-care center property without proper justification or authorization and failing to leave upon request. While this establishes a new criminal offense, the LBB anticipates that it will not materially increase the demand for state correctional resources or significantly alter existing incarceration patterns.

From the perspective of local governments—which are primarily responsible for enforcing misdemeanor offenses—the bill is also expected to have minimal fiscal impact. Local entities such as police departments, county courts, and jails may incur some costs for enforcement, prosecution, and supervision of individuals charged under the new statute. However, the LBB projects that any additional workload or associated expenditures at the county or municipal level would not be significant.

Overall, while the bill introduces new grounds for criminal prosecution, its narrow applicability and reliance on existing local enforcement mechanisms mitigate the potential for fiscal strain. The LBB’s conclusion reinforces the legislative intent that the bill targets specific safety concerns near schools and day-care centers without imposing a substantial financial burden on the criminal justice system​.

HB 353 seeks to establish a new Class A misdemeanor offense for individuals who enter or remain on, or within 250 feet of, school or day-care center property without having a custodial reason or written permission, and who refuse a reasonable request to leave. This bill is driven by a specific incident involving an individual loitering near a day-care playground, and it aims to give administrators and law enforcement tools to intervene before harm occurs. The underlying public safety concern—protecting children in school and child-care settings—is legitimate and well-founded.

However, as currently written, the bill raises multiple concerns across several liberty-oriented policy dimensions. First, it significantly expands the scope of government authority by criminalizing presence near schools and day-care centers based not on any actual misconduct or intent to harm, but rather on a lack of explicit permission or a narrowly defined custodial relationship. This is a substantial departure from the originally filed version, which required either a risk of harm or a repeated pattern of inappropriate conduct. In this regard, the bill extends criminal liability to individuals for otherwise legal conduct in public spaces, such as sidewalks and parks, simply because of their proximity to protected facilities.

Second, the bill increases the regulatory burden on individuals without providing sufficient clarity about who qualifies as having legitimate reasons to be present. For example, parents without formal custody documents, neighbors, delivery workers, or contractors could be subject to prosecution if they are not known to the institution or cannot demonstrate a recognized relationship. This creates risk of arbitrary or uneven enforcement, particularly against members of marginalized or misunderstood communities.

Third, although the fiscal note from the Legislative Budget Board indicates that the bill would not have a significant cost to state or local governments, it nonetheless introduces new criminal procedures, enforcement responsibilities, and potential detention for violations. While these costs may be minimal at scale, they still represent an incremental expansion of the criminal justice system’s role in managing public safety concerns that might be more effectively addressed through civil or administrative remedies.

Fourth, the bill may be constitutionally vulnerable. By criminalizing presence on public property without requiring harmful intent or conduct, the bill risks infringing upon freedom of movement, due process, and equal protection rights. Courts have generally been cautious about statutes that allow government entities to penalize individuals for merely being present in a public place without clearer evidence of threat or unlawful conduct.

To address these concerns while preserving the core intent of protecting children and staff, the following amendments are recommended: Restore Conduct-Based Thresholds, Reintroduce the requirement from the originally filed bill that the person either poses a substantial risk of harm or engages in repeated, inappropriate behavior under a specific scheme or pattern. This ties the offense to identifiable, actionable misconduct. Clarify “Custodial Relationship” and Legitimate Purposes, Provide a clear, inclusive list of permissible reasons for being near school or day-care property—such as parenting time, neighbor access, delivery services, maintenance, attendance at public events, or other legitimate business, Narrow Application to Non-Public Property, Remove or restrict the bill’s application to public spaces (e.g., sidewalks, parks, streets), unless a specific court order or documented prior incident justifies individualized exclusion. Alternatively, include a sunset clause or judicial oversight for repeated violations, Include an Intent Requirement, Require evidence that the individual knowingly loitered or surveilled the premises without a lawful purpose, to ensure that criminal penalties apply only to deliberate misconduct rather than innocent presence. Enhance Procedural Safeguards, Require that the request to leave be documented or witnessed by at least one other employee, and that individuals be given a verbal warning or opportunity to clarify their purpose before being charged.

By adopting these amendments, HB 353 could achieve its goal of preventing predatory behavior near children without overreaching into constitutionally protected spaces or creating disproportionate criminal penalties. Until such revisions are made, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO, Amend on HB 353.

• The bill creates a criminal offense based on a person’s mere presence within 250 feet of a school or day-care center, even if on public property, unless they have a narrowly defined reason for being there or written permission. This infringes on the basic right to move freely and lawfully in public spaces. By criminalizing presence rather than conduct, the bill risks suppressing constitutionally protected freedoms, such as the right to travel, peaceably assemble, or engage in innocent activity without fear of prosecution. The lack of a requirement for harmful intent or behavior raises serious concerns about overreach.
• On the surface, the bill appears to promote personal responsibility by requiring individuals to leave school premises when requested and avoid lingering without a purpose. However, the standard for responsibility is vague and potentially arbitrary. People who have no harmful intent—such as contractors, neighbors, or even non-custodial parents—could be penalized despite not engaging in misconduct. This undermines the principle of fair accountability by placing individuals at risk for unknowingly violating an ambiguous law.
• While the bill does not directly regulate businesses, it could create liability concerns for small business owners, service providers, or contractors operating near schools or day-care centers. For example, a delivery driver or maintenance worker who temporarily stops within the 250-foot zone may technically fall within the statute's scope if lacking formal permission. This creates a potential chilling effect on enterprise near sensitive zones, though the impact would likely be limited to edge cases.
• HB 353 allows for criminal penalties based on actions occurring on public property, such as sidewalks and parks. This blurs the boundary between public and private control and introduces a presumption that individuals must justify their presence near certain types of property. While it aims to protect school property, the bill oversteps by extending criminal control to surrounding areas that are not owned by the school or day-care. This undermines the principle that property rights—including public access to shared space—should be clearly defined and respected.
• The bill expands government power by establishing a new criminal offense with a broad and discretionary standard. Law enforcement and school officials are given significant authority to determine who may be prosecuted, based on subjective judgments about a person’s presence and lack of a "recognized relationship." This is a clear instance of government growth in scope and authority. Moreover, it creates the possibility of uneven or biased enforcement, particularly in communities with less clarity about custodial arrangements or where individuals are unfamiliar to school personnel.

• SB 1602 (Same As)