Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Domestic Violence Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill clarifies notice and response process for temporary protection orders served on incarcerated parties
Summary
AB309 would require temporary protection orders served on incarcerated adverse parties to include a short written statement notifying the incarcerated person how to indicate whether they contest an extension; failure to file the short response within 14 days could allow the court to proceed without the incarcerated person present, sponsors said.
CARSON CITY — The Senate Judiciary Committee heard Assembly Bill 309 May 14, a bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Melissa Hardy to clarify procedures for temporary protection orders served on incarcerated adverse parties.
Hardy and two co-presenters from the Boyd School of Law told the committee the bill addresses a procedural ambiguity in Clark County practice when an incarcerated person is served with a temporary protection order and remains in custody through a scheduled extension hearing.
Under the reprint the committee considered, when a temporary protection order is served on an incarcerated adverse party the order must include a simple, written notice stating whether the adverse party contests the issuance of an extended order and instructing that the adverse party may file a written response with the court through procedures the custody facility establishes. If the incarcerated party does not file the short written response within 14 calendar days after service, the court could hold the extension hearing or grant the extended order in the adverse party’s absence.
Proponents told the committee the change is procedural, not substantive. Courtney Cross, who directs the survivor representation and advocacy clinic at the Boyd School of Law (speaking personally), described repeated continuances in Clark County when hearing masters were uncertain whether adequate notice had been given and urged a clearer, predictable process so survivors are not forced to return to court repeatedly. The bill also changes the earlier text’s reference to “affidavit” and instead requires a “written response” limited to whether the incarcerated party contests the extended order.
Supporters included the Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (which worked with bill drafters), Nevada Women’s Lobby and other survivor-advocacy groups. Law-enforcement representatives told the committee the bill reduces uncertainty while protecting due-process rights by creating a straightforward mechanism for an incarcerated adverse party to indicate a desire to contest an extension.
Opposition or neutral testimony was not offered in committee. The measure includes an operative date provision in the reprint stating the changes apply to orders issued on or after Oct. 1, 2025. The committee closed testimony and the bill will await further action if the sponsor requests advancement.
