STALKING/HARASSMENT NO CONTACT
SB2103 would rename Illinois’ Stalking No Contact Order Act as the Stalking or Harassment No Contact Order Act and expand the law’s scope to expressly cover “harassment” as defined in the bill. The new harassment definition focuses on violence or threats of violence or death, including a single act, directed at a specific person and causing a reasonable person to fear for safety or suffer emotional distress. The bill also updates related definitions and remedies so that the same protective-order framework can be used for stalking or harassment, including emergency and plenary orders, school-related protections, firearm restrictions, service procedures, and enforcement provisions.
The measure makes extensive conforming changes across multiple statutes to align Illinois law with the new terminology. Those changes reach criminal enforcement provisions, pretrial release rules, juvenile aftercare and adult parole conditions, victim compensation rules, address confidentiality protections, the domestic violence fatality review process, and the Illinois Human Rights Act. It also revises related no-contact and protective-order statutes so that references to stalking orders now include harassment, and so that law enforcement, courts, and state agencies use consistent terminology and recordkeeping.
In practical terms, the bill would broaden access to no-contact relief for people facing threatening conduct that may not fit a narrower stalking definition but still creates fear or emotional distress. It would also preserve and reinforce existing remedies such as stay-away provisions, no-contact provisions, firearm prohibitions, expedited hearings, and law-enforcement entry into state databases. Because the bill is largely a terminology-and-conforming-changes measure, its legal effect is to integrate harassment into the existing protective-order structure rather than create a separate standalone process.
The available record shows no committee transcript, no recorded votes, and no formal action history beyond introduction, so there is no documented legislative debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears oriented toward victim protection and procedural consistency, and its overall tone is remedial rather than punitive. The absence of recorded discussion means any contention is not documented in the provided materials, but potential points of debate would likely center on the breadth of the new harassment definition, the inclusion of single acts, and the continued firearm and criminal-penalty consequences tied to these orders.
SB2103 would amend the Stalking No Contact Order Act and numerous related statutes to replace “stalking no contact order” with “stalking or harassment no contact order,” and to add a statutory definition of harassment. It would also update criminal, civil, corrections, victim-services, and human-rights provisions so that protective orders, enforcement, recordkeeping, and collateral consequences all reference the expanded terminology. The bill would affect respondents subject to protective orders, victims seeking relief, law enforcement agencies, courts, the Illinois State Police, correctional agencies, and agencies administering victim compensation and address confidentiality programs.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the record. From the bill text, the measure is framed as a victim-protection and terminology-modernization bill, suggesting a generally supportive posture toward expanding protective-order coverage. The absence of recorded opposition or amendment activity means the available materials do not show any formalized controversy or partisan split.
The provided record contains no committee discussion or vote history, so no specific objections are documented. If contested, the most likely issues would be the breadth of the new harassment definition, especially its inclusion of a single act and emotional distress, and the bill’s extension of protective-order consequences into firearm restrictions, criminal enforcement, and corrections supervision. Another possible point of concern is the bill’s broad conforming amendments across many statutes, which could raise implementation and drafting questions for courts and agencies.