Oklahoma House Bill HB3905

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/3/26
• Report Pass: 3/5/26
• Engrossed: 3/30/26
• Refer: 4/1/26

Caption

Domestic violence; requiring use of Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring devices; effective date.

Summary

HB3905 amends Oklahoma’s Protection from Domestic Abuse Act to expand and clarify when courts may order GPS monitoring in domestic violence and related cases. The bill authorizes courts, in conjunction with protective or restraining orders, to require an alleged defendant to wear an active, real-time, 24-hour GPS monitoring device when the court finds a history or evidence suggesting a likelihood of violence against the victim. It also allows a victim, upon application, to monitor the defendant’s location through limited computer or cellular inquiries or alerts when the defendant comes within a specified distance of the victim. The bill further extends GPS monitoring authority to defendants charged with stalking, violating a victim protective order, domestic abuse by strangulation, domestic abuse with a dangerous or deadly weapon, or domestic abuse after a prior adjudication. It requires defendants to pay the costs of the device and related supervision unless the court finds them indigent, in which case alternative payment sources or county services may be used if available. The bill also sets procedures for county pretrial release or supervision programs to monitor devices, requires annual review of victim-monitoring orders, and directs removal of the device at the conclusion of the case or under certain court orders. The act takes effect November 1, 2026.

Impact

HB3905 would amend 22 O.S. 2021, Section 60.17, adding detailed statutory authority for GPS-based monitoring in domestic violence and related criminal cases. It affects courts, defendants charged with specified offenses, county pretrial release or supervision programs, and victims who seek location-monitoring access. The bill also creates payment and supervision rules, including indigency exceptions and alternative funding options, and clarifies when monitoring orders may continue, terminate, or be removed.

Sentiment

The available discussion and voting history indicate strong support for the bill. It passed the House Criminal Judiciary Committee 5-0, the House Judiciary and Public Safety Oversight Committee 13-0, and the House on third reading 89-0. Committee commentary described the GPS monitor amendment as a matter of “clarity and flexibility, not mandates,” suggesting the measure was viewed as a practical public-safety tool rather than a punitive expansion.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive opposition in the available record, as all recorded votes were unanimous. The main policy issues reflected in the text are how broadly courts may impose GPS monitoring, who pays for the devices and supervision, and how indigent defendants are handled. The bill also balances victim safety with privacy and scope limits by restricting victim monitoring to distance-based inquiries or alerts and excluding the defendant’s residence and workplace from certain location checks.