An act relating to domestic violence. An act to add Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 6328) to Chapter 2 of Part 4 of Division 10 of the Family Code, relating to domestic violence.
SB 871 would add a new article to the Family Code creating a continuous electronic monitoring framework for certain domestic violence cases. The bill defines a 24-hour, real-time GPS/electronic monitoring system worn by an alleged offender and administered by the court through contracts with public or private providers. It requires monitoring to be activated in specified domestic violence matters, including allegations involving strangulation or suffocation, use or threatened use of a deadly weapon, serious bodily injury, violation of a domestic violence protective order, or a prior domestic violence conviction within the past five years.
Under the bill, courts would order the monitored person to wear the device and, unless the court finds inability to pay, cover the costs of monitoring. If the victim consents, the court may also require the offender to pay for a victim-facing app or electronic receptor device that provides location-based alerts when the offender approaches prohibited areas or comes within a prescribed proximity. Monitoring violations would be transmitted immediately to local law enforcement and the protected party, and the monitoring would remain in effect until case disposition or further court order. The bill also includes legislative findings describing domestic violence as a public safety and public health crisis and cites other states’ technology-based monitoring programs as models.
SB 871 would expand the Family Code by adding Article 1.5 to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act and would impose new court, county, and municipal responsibilities related to electronic monitoring in domestic violence proceedings. It would create a state-mandated local program by requiring counties or municipalities to enter into agreements with qualified monitoring providers and designate agencies to respond to violations. The bill also contemplates reimbursement under the state mandate process if the Commission on State Mandates determines local costs are reimbursable. Affected parties would include courts, local law enforcement, counties and municipalities, monitoring vendors, alleged domestic violence offenders, and, with consent, protected victims who could receive alerting devices or applications.
The bill’s stated purpose and framing are strongly protective of domestic violence survivors, emphasizing prevention of homicides, real-time alerts, and survivor safety. The text reflects a policy-oriented and intervention-focused approach, and the inclusion of cost-shifting to the alleged offender suggests an effort to make the program financially sustainable while prioritizing victim protection. However, the available legislative history shows no recorded committee debate or votes, and the bill’s first hearing was canceled at the author’s request, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s own supportive findings.
The main points of potential contention are the mandatory nature of monitoring in specified cases, the expansion of court and local administrative duties, and the privacy, due process, and implementation concerns that can arise with continuous GPS-style surveillance. Another likely issue is cost allocation: the bill generally places monitoring costs on the alleged offender, but also requires local governments and courts to administer the system and coordinate responses, which could raise questions about operational burden and reimbursement. The bill also conditions victim alerting technology on victim consent, which may reflect sensitivity to survivor autonomy while still leaving open questions about effectiveness and administration.