S9 would let sexual-assault survivors request emergency protection orders after hours, committee hears

The Judiciary committee on Tuesday took up S9, a bill that would require the court administrator to establish procedures to allow after-hours requests for emergency protection orders in sexual-assault cases. Michelle Childs, who presented the bill language to the committee, said the proposal models after existing after-hours procedures for domestic or family abuse orders and would apply the same access to orders against sexual assault.

"This particular language is ... the court administrator shall establish procedures to ensure access to orders against sexual assault," Childs said, describing the bill's framework. Under the language discussed, applicants could submit requests electronically; an affidavit could be sworn by telephone; an authorized court employee would convey the affidavit to a judicial officer by phone or electronic means; and the judicial officer would decide to grant or deny an emergency order solely on the basis of the affidavit.

Victim advocates testified in favor of the bill. Laura Byerling, director of the Victims Rights Project at Vermont Legal Aid, said she handles many restraining order cases and that the change would close an important gap for survivors who experience assault outside regular court hours. "Victims of sexual assaults need to be able to access restraining orders in the same way that they would if they were assaulted by [a family member]," Byerling said, describing situations such as students who do not qualify for family-based orders but need immediate protection after an evening assault.

Charlie Glessmerman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, also urged passage, saying advocates report that safety is compromised when survivors cannot seek protection on evenings, weekends or holidays. He described an example from Atria Collective in Addison County in which a survivor assaulted on a Friday evening could not file for an order until Monday, leaving multiple days without legal protection.

Committee members and witnesses discussed whether the after-hours access should also extend to stalking orders. Witnesses and advocates recommended beginning with sexual-assault protection orders and revisiting stalking later, noting substantially different filing volumes: "there's only a few dozen of these cases filed every year. There are hundreds of the stalking orders requested every year," a committee witness said.

Members asked practical implementation questions. The bill allows judicial officers to rely on the affidavit alone for an emergency order and contemplates electronic submissions and telephone-sworn affidavits; staff and witnesses discussed training court personnel and mirroring the existing domestic-order after-hours procedures. The committee also asked about effective dating; Childs said the bill would likely need lead time for the court to establish procedures and staff training and suggested a possible effective date could be after administrative preparation.

Advocates noted resource constraints for 24/7 hotlines and services. Glessmerman and Byerling said their member organizations provide round-the-clock support but flagged funding and staffing as concerns if demand increases. The committee closed the witnesses' testimony without taking a vote; staff said a technical amendment from the miscellaneous bill dealing with service of process might be proposed as an amendment to S9 in the near term.