Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Protective Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal to let officers issue 72-hour protective orders draws praise and due-process concerns
Summary
LB876 would permit trained officers to issue immediate 72-hour protective orders, giving survivors time to seek civil protection orders; supporters said the tool would prevent post-arrest harassment, while defense groups warned it delegates judicial functions to police and raised separation-of-powers and due-process issues.
Lincoln — Senator Bob Hallstrom told the Judiciary Committee that LB876 would authorize trained law enforcement officers to issue an immediate short-term protective order at the scene of an incident to provide victims up to 72 hours of protection while a judge reviews or affirms the order.
"By authorizing law enforcement officers to issue immediate protective orders, this legislation seeks to enhance victim safety," Hallstrom said, stressing the time immediately after an incident is often when victims are at greatest risk.
Proponents included veterans of law enforcement and victim-advocacy groups. Matt Barrall, a 27-year officer who testified he had used a California-style emergency protective order, described the tool as practical for preventing recontact from suspects released before a civil hearing. Patrick Dempsey of the Omaha Police Officers Association and Melanie Kirk of the domestic-violence coalition said a 72-hour order would give survivors time to seek services and obtain a civil protection order.
Opponents raised constitutional and process concerns. Spike Eicholtz of the Nebraska Criminal Defense Attorneys Association and Tim Hruza of the Nebraska State Bar Association said the bill risks violating separation of powers by allowing an arresting officer to exercise a judicial-like function and argued that many comparable statutes in other states require immediate judicial approval for enforceability. They also highlighted due-process questions where an officer-issued order could impose criminal penalties for violations before a judge reviews probable cause.
Committee members discussed models from other states, whether an on-call judge review (phone or affidavit review) would be necessary, notification procedures for notified suspects and corrections procedures, and whether the bill should be amended to require prompt judicial review. Senator Hallstrom said he would continue to consult with opponents and stakeholders to address due-process concerns before the committee votes on the bill.
