Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tribal Protection Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel reviews bill to strengthen enforcement of tribal protection orders
Summary
Assemblymember Shaye Bakkes presented Assembly Bill 369 to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, saying the measure would let officers rely on electronic copies and certain statements to enforce tribal temporary protection orders off reservations and would create a documented notice-and-service process when service cannot be confirmed.
Assemblymember Shaye Bakkes, sponsor of Assembly Bill 369, told the Senate Committee on Judiciary that the measure would strengthen enforcement of tribal temporary protection orders (TPOs) off reservation.
"Assembly Bill 3 69 is a bill that helps ensure the protection of native peoples in our state," Bakkes said, describing the proposal as a follow-up to last session's AB125, which she said improved missing-person reporting and created a tribal liaison at the Department of Public Safety.
The bill would allow law-enforcement officers to consider a digital copy of a protection order as evidence, permit officers to rely on statements by the respondent in certain circumstances, and establish a stepwise process when an otherwise valid order cannot be enforced because the respondent has not been served. Under the proposal, officers would verbally inform the respondent (which the bill would treat as sufficient notice), make a reasonable effort to serve the order, document actions taken, and cooperate with the court for proof of service.
"This bill will reaffirm the full faith and credit given under NRS 33.085," Bakkes said, and argued that the measure "closes loopholes that have allowed abusers to evade protective orders." She framed the change as particularly important for Indigenous communities that may rely on federal law enforcement and whose tribal courts lack immediate access to the National Crime Information Center.
Supporters who testified in person and by phone described practical enforcement problems that the bill would address. William Horn of Western Public Affairs, speaking for a Nevada anti-domestic-violence organization, said the bill reduces barriers for survivors and reflects trauma-informed approaches to waivers and court access. Jason Walker of the Washington County Sheriff’s Office and Joshua Martinez of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department both said their agencies have encountered incidents where officers could not confirm otherwise valid orders and supported the amended language.
Shelby Bietz of the University of Nevada, Reno, cited statewide domestic-violence fatality statistics and said the bill "will assist to remove one barrier to protection from risk of fatality following domestic violence." Ryley Svendsen of the Nevada Coalition to End Domestic Violence and Mahilda Miller of Native Voters Alliance Nevada also testified remotely in support, urging the committee to prioritize protections for victim-survivors in tribal communities.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about terms in the bill. Senator Lang asked what "reasonable" meant in the context of officers making efforts to notify or serve a respondent; Bakkes replied the standard is meant to be practical and focused on de-escalation when officers encounter parties off reservation, while preserving an avenue to effect service if a respondent has intentionally avoided it. Senator Ellison asked about the interaction with federal statutes and removal of weapons; Bakkes and witnesses said enforcement of criminal remedies or weapon removal often depends on federal authorities (for example, BIA or FBI) when incidents occur on tribal land.
No formal vote was recorded during the hearing. The sponsor noted a short amendment available on the legislative information system (NELIS) and said she expected additional cleanup language after consultation with legal staff. The committee closed the hearing on AB369 and moved to the next agenda item.
The bill drew consistent support from tribal advocates, domestic-violence service providers and several law-enforcement agencies; no opposition testimony was offered during the hearing.
