In a joint statement, bar association president Ken Archer and law society president Sarah Avery said under the new laws, passed in the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday, police can enter a person's home at any time without a warrant.

Most concerning, they said, was that the laws were so broad officers can use the powers to investigate relatively trivial crimes such as shoplifting or bike theft.

The laws went well beyond the drive-by shooting crimes and bikie activity they were said to have addressed, they said.

But ACT Atttorney-General Gordon Ramsay said the new laws allow police to establish a crime scene to quickly protect and preserve evidence in either a public place or private property, and that they will still need to get a warrant to perform a search.

He said the new laws bring the capital into line with statutory crime scene powers in other states and territory.

"The new laws will ensure that police efforts to secure crime scenes in public and private are uncompromised without limiting people's rights," Mr Ramsay said.

But in the joint statement released on Wednesday, Mr Archer and Ms Avery said they were "dismayed" at the law's passing.

Under current ACT laws, police can enter private homes only in certain circumstances, including with a warrant or in urgent or dangerous situations, they said.

They observed that "even in the field of preventing and fighting terrorism, the Commonwealth has not sought powers granting police the right of entry without a warrant."

They said the new powers were lacking in protections found in similar laws in other jurisdictions, such as a higher offence threshold and requirements to get a warrant as soon as practicable.

Noting the broad language of the powers, Mr Archer and Ms Avery said the government had "effectively abandoned" long-standing protections provided by the requirement for police to obtain search warrants.

"If drive-by shootings are the reason for the introduction of this power, then the crime scene powers should be strictly confined to offences involving the discharge of firearms, causing harm or attempts to cause harm, or endangering health or safety."

They acknowledged police should have sufficient power to investigate violent and dangerous behaviour.

But they said it was disappointing that in attempting to deal with drive-by shootings and bikie crime, the government permitted an "indiscriminate and unjustified compromise" of traditional freedoms and protections,.

In the same laws passed on Tuesday, people found guilty of committing drive-by shootings face a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment.

Mr Ramsay said the penalty for a drive-by shooting "accurately reflects community expectations" for this type of crime.

The new crime, of discharging firearm at building or conveyance, also means that a particular person does not need to be the target of the shooting.

Under the earlier offence used to charge drive-by shooting accused, prosecutors were required to prove a person felt reasonable apprehension for their safety.

That is no longer required.