relative to petitions for certain orders of protection where the subject of the order is either released on bail or on probation.
Summary
HB 1641 would require court clerks to transmit certain protective orders to the prosecutor and probation office within 24 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, when the person subject to the order is already on bail or on probation. The bill applies this requirement to domestic violence temporary relief orders, domestic violence relief orders, stalking protective orders, and civil restraining orders. It is framed as a notification and information-sharing measure intended to ensure that prosecutors and probation officers are promptly aware when a defendant under court supervision becomes subject to a new protective order.
The bill also creates a new section in the civil restraining order chapter requiring the same transmission of temporary or final civil restraining orders to prosecutors and probation officers under the same circumstances. The act would take effect on January 1, 2027. According to the fiscal note, the bill does not appropriate money or create new positions, but the Judicial Branch anticipates significant implementation costs because each court location would need staff to determine whether a subject is on bail or probation, including in other jurisdictions.
Impact
HB 1641 would amend RSA 173-B and RSA 633:3-a, and add a new section to RSA 491, to impose a mandatory clerk-notification duty for certain protective orders involving defendants on bail or probation. In practical terms, it would expand the administrative responsibilities of the court system and create a new statutory workflow for sharing protective-order information with prosecutors and probation officers. The fiscal note estimates substantial General Fund expenditures beginning in FY 2027, driven primarily by staffing needs across 43 court locations, with possible additional but smaller software or records-check costs.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have support from a bipartisan group of sponsors and is presented as a public-safety and court-coordination measure. The available record does not include committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor debate or formal opposition in the materials provided. The fiscal note, however, suggests the Judicial Branch views the proposal as operationally burdensome and costly to implement.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the cost and staffing burden of compliance. The Judicial Branch estimates that meeting the 24-hour transmission requirement would require a dedicated Court Operations Specialist at each of 43 court locations, resulting in multi-million-dollar annual General Fund costs. Another likely issue is the administrative difficulty of determining whether a person subject to a protective order is on bail or probation, especially when those conditions originate in other jurisdictions. Supporters are likely focused on faster notice to prosecutors and probation officers to improve enforcement and victim safety, while the branch’s concern is the unfunded mandate and the practicality of implementation.
Allowing the department of justice to authorize the preclosing use of a portion of a deposit held in escrow for the payment of certain construction customizations, upgrades, or change orders.
Relative to the issuance of no trespass orders on municipal or school district property, the responsibility of local school districts to provide meals to students during school hours, and reimbursing schools for meals provided to students at no cost, and relative to expanding the crime of endangering the welfare of a child.