Representative Bernie Satrim introduced HB 1336 as a measure to expand and clarify how orders prohibiting contact (protective orders) are used as alternatives to sentencing and how they may be removed. Satrim said the bill would extend protections in some cases so victims could call law enforcement rather than immediately pursue a separate civil action.

The North Dakota State's Attorneys Association supported the bill but suggested a specific change: where the draft required the court to hold a hearing on a dismissal request, the association recommended that the statute say the court "may" hold the hearing so judges are not forced to hold a formal hearing on a dismissal request where both the protected person and prosecutor favor dismissal. Jonathan Byers of the State's Attorneys Association explained that change to the committee.

Committee members also questioned deletions in the draft text (page 1, lines 17–21). Representative Vedder moved an amendment to restore the overwritten text in lines 17–21 and to change the word "shall" to "may" on line 23; Representative Carls seconded. The committee voted 14–0 on the amendment. After additional procedure, the committee then voted 14–0 on a do‑pass recommendation for HB 1336 as amended. Representative McLeod agreed to carry the bill to the floor.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bill clarifies existing practice — including the common use of bond conditions and protective orders early in criminal cases — and creates a clear process for victims or defendants to seek dismissal of an order when circumstances change.

What’s next: HB 1336 moves to the full House with a due‑pass recommendation and an amendment restoring prior text and making the hearing permissive rather than mandatory.