AN ACT to amend and reenact section 12.1-31.2-02, subsection 1 of section 12.1-32-02, and subdivision h of subsection 5 of section 39-08-01 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to orders prohibiting contact and use of orders prohibiting contact as an alternative to sentencing.
HB 1336 revises North Dakota law governing “orders prohibiting contact” in criminal cases. It clarifies when courts may issue these orders for people charged with, arrested for, or sentenced for crimes of violence, threats of violence, stalking, harassment, or sex offenses; requires the court to consider such an order when a defendant is released before arraignment or trial; and allows either party or the victim to request modification or termination. The bill also keeps in place provisions requiring notice to victims, law-enforcement entry of the order into state and federal databases, and warrantless arrest for probable violations.
The bill also adds an order prohibiting contact as an express sentencing alternative under the state sentencing statute. That means a court may use a contact-prohibition order as part of sentencing, alongside other authorized alternatives such as probation, imprisonment, fines, restitution, treatment programs, drug court, veterans treatment docket, restorative justice, and mental health court. In addition, the bill makes technical changes to the impaired-driving sentencing statute to preserve treatment-credit language and confirm that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is not responsible for private treatment costs.
HB 1336 amends three sections of the North Dakota Century Code: section 12.1-31.2-02 on orders prohibiting contact, section 12.1-32-02 on sentencing alternatives, and section 39-08-01 on impaired-driving penalties and treatment. Its practical effect is to strengthen and clarify court authority to issue, extend, modify, and enforce no-contact orders, and to treat those orders as a formal sentencing option. It also preserves existing enforcement mechanisms, including mandatory transmission of orders to law enforcement databases and class A misdemeanor penalties for violations.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House 93-0 and the Senate 47-0, with no recorded dissent in the available committee materials. The unanimous votes suggest general agreement that the measure improves victim protection and clarifies sentencing and enforcement procedures.
No notable opposition is reflected in the available record. The main policy choices in the bill are procedural rather than controversial: expanding the use of contact-prohibition orders as a sentencing tool, preserving victim notification and database entry requirements, and maintaining law-enforcement authority to arrest for violations. Any potential concern would likely center on judicial discretion, enforcement burdens, or the scope of contact restrictions, but no specific objections were recorded in the provided materials.