HB 1567 makes two main changes to Indiana law related to domestic violence and protective orders. First, it expands the assistance that must be provided to a person seeking an order for protection: the clerk of court, designated court personnel, or a law enforcement officer must provide the required forms, related filing/service forms, and clerical help in reading, completing, and filing the petition. If a law enforcement officer provides forms to a victim of domestic battery or harassment, the officer must remain with the victim while the forms are completed unless the victim refuses help, and then file the forms with the appropriate court as soon as practicable.
Second, the bill removes language in the arrest statute that allowed an officer to use an affidavit from a person with direct knowledge to establish probable cause for battery and domestic battery arrests. The bill also updates the arrest statute’s domestic-violence-related provisions and retains existing arrest authority for a range of offenses, including violations involving domestic or family violence, invasion of privacy, theft, and certain immigration-related detainers or convictions. The effective date is July 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill amends IC 34-26-5-3 and IC 35-33-1-1. In practice, it would require more active procedural assistance for protective-order petitioners and would standardize the delivery of forms and filing support across courts and law enforcement agencies. It also changes the probable-cause language for arrests involving battery and domestic battery by deleting the affidavit reference, which may affect how officers document and justify arrests in those cases. The bill does not create a new cause of action, but it does alter court and law-enforcement procedures affecting victims, clerks, police agencies, and the protective-order registry.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a victim-support and domestic-violence-response bill. Its stated purpose and structure suggest a generally protective, pro-victim policy approach, emphasizing easier access to protective orders and more immediate assistance from law enforcement and court staff. No recorded opposition or amendment history is available in the provided materials.
Contention
The most likely point of contention is the change to arrest procedures: removing the affidavit language could be viewed by some as narrowing or clarifying probable-cause support for battery and domestic battery arrests, while others may see it as eliminating a useful evidentiary tool. Another possible issue is the requirement that officers stay with victims and help complete and file protective-order paperwork, which could raise workload, training, and resource concerns for law enforcement and court personnel. Supporters would likely emphasize improved access and safety for victims of domestic violence and harassment.