HB2815 would amend Illinois law governing stalking no contact orders and civil no contact orders, as well as related provisions in the Criminal Code of 2012. The bill keeps a first violation of either type of order as a Class A misdemeanor, but changes the felony enhancement structure. Instead of making a second or subsequent violation automatically a Class 4 felony, the bill would make a violation a Class 4 felony only if the defendant has certain prior convictions, including domestic battery, violation of an order of protection, or a range of serious violent and sexual offenses committed against a family or household member.
The bill also adds a mandatory minimum penalty of 24 hours of imprisonment for a second or subsequent violation of a stalking no contact order or civil no contact order, unless the court finds that such a penalty would be manifestly unjust. It further authorizes courts to impose fines and restitution to the victim in addition to other penalties. The same changes are mirrored in both the Stalking No Contact Order Act and the Civil No Contact Order Act, with conforming changes in the Criminal Code.
Impact
HB2815 would narrow and restructure when violations of stalking no contact orders and civil no contact orders are elevated from misdemeanors to felonies. Under current law, a second or subsequent violation is generally a Class 4 felony; under the bill, felony treatment would depend on the defendant’s prior criminal history and, for many listed offenses, whether those offenses were committed against a family or household member. The bill would also create a mandatory minimum jail term for repeat violations, while preserving judicial discretion to avoid that minimum if it would be manifestly unjust. These changes would affect respondents subject to no contact orders, prosecutors, and courts enforcing domestic violence-related protective remedies.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a public-safety and domestic-violence enforcement approach, with a focus on stronger consequences for repeat or higher-risk offenders. The overall tone of the proposal is punitive toward repeat violations while still allowing limited judicial discretion.
Contention
The main policy tension in HB2815 is between uniform escalation for repeat violations and a more tailored approach based on prior convictions. Supporters would likely view the bill as strengthening protection for victims by targeting offenders with histories of domestic violence, stalking, or other serious violent crimes and by requiring at least some jail time for repeat violations. Potential critics may object to the mandatory minimum imprisonment requirement, the expanded felony triggers tied to prior convictions, or the complexity of the offense-history-based enhancement scheme. Another possible point of debate is the bill’s retention of judicial discretion only through a narrow “manifestly unjust” exception.