Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Protection Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nebraska bill would raise felony penalties for repeat protection‑order violations
Summary
Sen. Jason Prokop told the Judiciary Committee LB 1,000 would create graduated felony penalties for repeated violations of domestic‑abuse and sexual‑assault protection orders, aiming to prevent escalation. Prosecutors and law enforcement backed the change; defense lawyers warned of overcriminalization.
Sen. Jason Prokop introduced LB 1,000 to the Judiciary Committee, saying repeated violations of protection orders are a pattern that current penalties do not adequately address and that the bill would impose escalating felony penalties for third and subsequent violations.
Prokop said the measure would change a third violation to a Class 3A felony and a fourth or subsequent violation to a Class 2A felony, arguing that “repeated violations are not mistakes or misunderstandings. They are clear warning signs of escalation.” He cited Lincoln figures for 2024 — roughly 1,512 protection‑order requests and more than 500 reported violations — as part of the case for stronger statutory tools.
Prosecutors and law enforcement voiced support in the hearing. Rachel Bolton of the Nebraska County Attorneys Association told the committee that prosecutors “see the real world impact of repeat offenders who continue to intimidate, harass, or harm victims despite those protection orders,” and described difficulties convincing victims that the system can hold repeat violators accountable. Lincoln Police Chief Michon Morrow said repeated violations often signal increased lethality and described local investigation volumes and repeat‑offender cases.
Survivors and family members also urged the committee to act. Belinda Hagen, whose testimony referenced the murder of a family member, described seeking protection that did not prevent later fatal violence and called for “prevention and protection” rather than only reactive measures.
Opponents raised concerns about the proposal’s breadth. Spike Eicholt, representing defense interests, warned the committee that the bill risks converting consensual or technical contacts into serious felonies in some factual scenarios and urged the panel to weigh proportionality, discretion, and potential impacts on incarceration. He noted that some counties already impose meaningful penalties under current law and cautioned that expanding felony categories could have significant consequences for defendants and the corrections system.
Committee members questioned how prosecutorial discretion and fiscal impacts would play out if more violations were charged as felonies, and whether the state’s fiscal note accurately reflects potential costs of increased incarceration. Proponents said prosecutorial charging practices and judicial sentencing discretion would continue to shape outcomes but argued the statute should provide tools that align penalties with repeated harmful behavior.
The committee did not take a vote in the hearing; the bill record closed after testimony and questioning.
