Nevada committee hears bill to clarify temporary protection-order notices for incarcerated respondents

The Nevada Assembly Judiciary Committee on Wednesday heard Assembly Bill 309, legislation sponsored by Assemblywoman Melissa Hardy that would require temporary protection orders (TPOs) served on incarcerated adverse parties to include explicit instructions for contesting an extended protection order, including a 14-calendar-day deadline to file an affidavit.

Supporters said the bill is intended to remove procedural ambiguity that has delayed protection-order proceedings and retraumatized survivors, while preserving due-process opportunities for incarcerated respondents.

Assemblywoman Melissa Hardy, sponsor of AB 309, told the committee, "AB 309 seeks to clarify the process surrounding temporary protective orders, commonly referred to as TPOs, involving incarcerated adverse parties." The bill, as described to the committee, amends NRS 33.03 to require that a TPO served on an incarcerated adverse party: advise the person that they may contest an extended order by submitting an affidavit within 14 calendar days; require the affidavit to state specific reasons why the extended order should not be granted; and inform the person that failure to submit the affidavit may allow the court to proceed in their absence and grant an extended order without further input.

Courtney Cross, director of the Survivor Representation and Advocacy Clinic at the William S. Boyd School of Law at UNLV, told the committee the clinic has repeatedly encountered cases in Clark County where an adverse party is held in custody and the lack of a clear response procedure leads to multiple continuances. Cross said clinic student attorneys have provided both limited and extended representation to 34 survivors this semester and that the clinic has sometimes had to return to court "three or four times" while waiting for criminal-case developments.

Courtney Poe, an attorney at Holland & Hart and former student attorney at the Boyd clinic, provided a section-by-section summary to the committee and noted that Section 2 of the bill would apply to protective orders issued on or after Oct. 1, 2025.

Several organizations and witnesses testified in support. Serena Evans, policy director for the Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, called the bill "victim-centered" and said repeated continuances force survivors to miss work, arrange childcare and relive trauma. Liz Ortenberger, CEO of SafeNest, said Clark County accounts for about 80 percent of the state's domestic-violence cases and urged passage for the problems observed there.

Public defenders raised practical concerns in opposition and asked to work with the sponsor on implementation details. Angela Knott of the Washoe County Public Defender's Office and Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender's Office both said logistical issues — including how incarcerated people would prepare and submit affidavits, access to notaries, how jails would provide forms and the processing time for jail mail — need clearer solutions. Guerrero also cautioned that pretrial detainees may be released before mailed notices are delivered, which could produce hearings held without notice to the respondent.

Committee members asked about how incarcerated parties would file an affidavit and whether transport or video appearances were available. Cross said in Clark County transport to family court is rarely feasible and remote appearance capability is limited; she described "one morning video appearance possibility seemingly each month" and noted substantial logistical barriers to bringing incarcerated people to court or having them appear remotely.

Maximiliano (Max) Lowe, testifying neutral, suggested expanding the bill to cover certain clients of the Aging and Disability Services Division who are moved from supported living arrangements to psychiatric hospitals, noting gaps in notice and protections when victims and accused parties share residences.

Hardy closed by saying she and the bill's supporters were "pleased to see" a narrow gap between victim-advocacy and public-defender concerns and that she would coordinate with public defenders to address implementation questions. No committee vote was taken at the hearing; the sponsor closed the hearing on AB 309 and the committee moved to public comment and adjournment.