To Amend The Definitions Under The Domestic Abuse Act Of 1991.
Summary
HB1430 amends the Arkansas Domestic Abuse Act of 1991 by revising two statutory definitions used in domestic abuse proceedings. First, it clarifies the meaning of “course of control” as a pattern of behavior between family or household members that, in purpose or effect, unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty. Second, it expands the definition of “disturbing the peace” to expressly include a broader list of abusive or coercive behaviors.
The bill specifically lists conduct that can qualify as disturbing the peace, including course of control, stalking, repeated threats, criminal impersonation, verbal or electronic harassment, harassing phone calls made with intent to harass, surveillance-based harassment, destruction of personal property, and criminal trespass. By adding these examples, the bill appears intended to make domestic abuse protections more explicit and easier to apply in court and in protective-order cases.
Impact
HB1430 would amend Arkansas Code § 9-15-219 within the Domestic Abuse Act of 1991, affecting how courts, law enforcement, and litigants interpret conduct that supports domestic abuse findings and protective relief. The practical impact is to broaden and clarify the statutory language used to identify coercive control and related abusive behavior, potentially making it easier for victims to obtain protection and for courts to recognize nonphysical forms of abuse.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded vote, or formal opposition, so there is no documented debate to indicate strong controversy. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a generally protective and victim-centered approach, with an emphasis on clarifying and expanding domestic abuse definitions rather than narrowing them.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. If concerns were raised, they would likely center on how broadly terms such as “course of control,” “harassing through surveillance,” or “verbally or electronically harassing” could be interpreted in enforcement and litigation, but no such objections are recorded here. The bill’s sponsors and the absence of recorded opposition suggest the proposal is framed as a clarification and expansion of domestic abuse protections.