To Amend The Law Concerning The Offense Of Video Voyeurism; To Extend The Statute Of Limitations For The Offense Of Video Voyeurism; And To Make An Order Of Protection Available To A Victim Of Video Voyeurism.
Summary
SB555 amends Arkansas law on video voyeurism in three main ways. First, it extends the time to prosecute video voyeurism so a case may be brought within one year after the offense is discovered, or should reasonably have been discovered, by the victim. Second, it clarifies that a defendant cannot avoid prosecution by claiming the conduct occurred in a romantic relationship. Third, it adds video voyeurism to the list of acts that can qualify as “domestic abuse” for purposes of obtaining an order of protection when the parties are family or household members.
The bill is aimed at strengthening remedies for victims of covert recording and surveillance by expanding both criminal enforcement and civil protection options. It amends the criminal limitations statute, the video voyeurism offense statute, and the domestic abuse/order-of-protection statute, thereby affecting prosecutors, victims, and courts handling protective-order petitions. By expressly recognizing video voyeurism as a basis for protection orders, the bill broadens access to immediate legal relief beyond criminal prosecution alone.
Impact
SB555 changes Arkansas Code §§ 5-1-109, 5-16-101, and 9-15-103. It creates a discovery-based limitations period for video voyeurism, removes romantic relationship status as a defense, and makes video voyeurism an enumerated form of domestic abuse for purposes of orders of protection. The practical effect is to give victims more time to report and pursue charges, and to allow courts to issue protective orders in qualifying cases involving family or household members.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong bipartisan support and no recorded opposition, with unanimous third-reading votes in both chambers (33-0 in the Senate and 96-0 in the House). There are no committee transcripts provided, but the final votes suggest the bill was broadly viewed as a victim-protection measure with little controversy.
Contention
No formal committee debate is available, and the recorded votes indicate no opposition. The only potentially contentious policy point apparent from the text is the explicit rejection of a romantic-relationship defense, which may have been intended to close a loophole in cases involving intimate partners. Another possible issue is the expansion of protective-order eligibility to a non-physical privacy offense, but the bill’s unanimous passage suggests these concerns did not generate significant resistance.