HB 1651 establishes a new civil sexual assault protective order process in New Hampshire. A person who can show by a preponderance of the evidence that they were the victim of sexual assault may petition the circuit court for relief in the district where either party resides. If the court finds sexual assault occurred, it must issue relief necessary to protect the victim’s physical, psychological, or emotional wellbeing, using the same general procedures, notice, service, enforcement, and penalty framework that applies to domestic violence protective orders under RSA 173-B.
The bill also sets rules for duration and renewal of these orders. Initial orders may last up to one year, with possible extensions of one year and then up to five years at a time, subject to court review, notice to the defendant, and a right to a hearing on extension. The bill expressly allows minors to seek or be subject to these orders, permits limited attorney contact with a protected plaintiff for legitimate litigation purposes, and authorizes warrantless arrest within 12 hours for probable violations. Knowingly violating an order is a class A misdemeanor, and repeat violations can rise to a class B felony.
In addition to the new protective-order remedy, HB 1651 expands sexual assault survivors’ rights regarding evidence kits. It requires preservation of a sexual assault evidence collection kit, or its probative contents, for the longer of the maximum applicable statute of limitations or 20 years, and adds rights to be informed of kit results, written policies on collection and preservation, and the status and location of the kit. The act takes effect January 1, 2027.
The bill’s impact on state law is to create a new statutory protection specifically for sexual assault survivors and to strengthen existing survivor-notification and evidence-preservation provisions. It may also affect judicial, law enforcement, prosecution, and correctional workloads because it creates new criminal penalties and enforcement mechanisms, though the fiscal note says the costs are indeterminable and no direct revenue or appropriation changes are expected.
Overall, the available context suggests generally supportive treatment of the bill as a survivor-protection measure, with no recorded votes or committee transcript debate provided here. The main points of potential contention are likely to involve the scope of the new civil remedy, the use of domestic-violence-style procedures for sexual assault cases, the warrantless arrest provision, and the expansion of criminal penalties for violations. The bill also raises implementation questions for courts, law enforcement, and agencies responsible for evidence-kit tracking and preservation.
HB 1651 amends RSA 632-A and RSA 21-M to create a new sexual assault protective order process and to expand statutory rights for sexual assault survivors. It adds a civil remedy in circuit court, incorporates RSA 173-B procedures for enforcement and relief, authorizes warrantless arrest for recent violations, and establishes misdemeanor and felony penalties for violating such orders. It also lengthens evidence-kit preservation requirements and adds survivor notification rights concerning kit results, policies, and kit status/location. The fiscal note anticipates indeterminable judicial and correctional costs but no direct revenue change or appropriation.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to measure directly. Based on the bill’s purpose and sponsors, the measure appears to be framed positively as a survivor-protection and public-safety bill. The fiscal note and statutory design suggest the principal institutional concerns are operational rather than ideological, focusing on court workload, enforcement, and correctional impacts.
Likely areas of contention include whether sexual assault survivors should have a standalone protective-order process or rely on existing protective-order statutes, and whether importing RSA 173-B procedures is the best fit for these cases. The warrantless-arrest authority, the criminal penalties for violations, and the ability to extend orders for multiple years may also draw scrutiny from defense, law enforcement, and judicial stakeholders. Evidence-kit retention and notification requirements could raise administrative concerns for prosecutors, hospitals, and law enforcement agencies responsible for tracking and preserving kits.