Judiciary advances bill clarifying protection orders to cover electronic tracking, temporary vehicle possession and domestic violence programs

The Judiciary committee advanced a legislative draft commonly referred to in committee as H 222 that would explicitly expand civil protection-order statutes to cover surveillance using electronic tracking devices, add temporary possession of a vehicle as an available form of relief in both emergency and final relief-from-abuse orders, and allow courts to consider completion of domestic violence accountability programs as a condition or mitigating factor in relief orders.

The changes "make it very clear" that placing an electronic tracking device such as an AirTag in a bag or vehicle and then surveilling that device can be treated as part of a course of conduct under the civil stalking statute, the bill sponsor told the committee. The draft notes surveillance over a period of time; testimony discussed examples where a device is left and the subject is monitored for 12 hours or more.

The bill also adds temporary possession of a vehicle to the forms of relief listed in the domestic-violence relief-from-abuse statutes in two places in the draft: emergency orders (short-term relief) and final orders. Sponsors said that change is intended to address circumstances where use of a vehicle is necessary for a victim to reach safety.

The draft adds completion of a domestic violence accountability program (referred to in testimony as DVAPs) to the forms of available relief under relief-from-abuse orders. The sponsor said that change came from the 2025 report of the Vermont Domestic Violence Fatality Relief Commission and is intended to expand access to programming for people who do not pursue criminal charges. Testimony emphasized that the statute was drafted to make clear that failure to complete a program would not be a crime.

"The court would have to assess whether a specific case is appropriate," a member of the judiciary said, describing the measure as creating an affirmative obligation in some cases while leaving the court discretion to order the program only when appropriate. The same speaker added that successful completion of a program could be considered in later proceedings so that someone who already completed programming in a civil matter might not be required to duplicate it later in a criminal case following assessment.

Committee witnesses told lawmakers the programs are confidential and designed to avoid forcing participants to incriminate themselves. The judiciary said it is coordinating judicial training through its judicial college to familiarize judges with what the programs look like and the criteria for admission so courts can apply the new tools if the bill becomes law.

Committee members also discussed related technical edits: language coordinated with a House transportation bill, and a Department of Motor Vehicles suggestion to adjust statutory cross-references. Committee members raised constitutional concerns in other parts of the session about distinguishing searches of buildings from intrusions on a person, and about the legal differences between breath tests and blood draws; the committee record shows those questions were considered in carving out criminal-refusal language tied to execution of warrants.

The committee chair moved to report the bill, "version 2.1," out favorably. On the record the committee announced the outcome as 5–0–0 in favor; the chair said the bill will be reported to the next floor and that committee staff would wait to hear from prosecutors and program vendors before scheduling the floor vote.

The bill's supporters said the changes aim to close gaps judges and advocates have identified in applying civil stalking and relief-from-abuse statutes to modern forms of surveillance and to expand access to voluntary accountability programming. Opponents and some members sought additional clarity on how civil program participation would intersect with parallel criminal cases and on the constitutional limits of compelled medical testing in related statutes.

Next steps: committee staff said they will accept any further input from prosecutors and program vendors; the chair indicated the bill could be taken up for a floor vote imminently.