Revises provisions relating to certain orders for protection against domestic violence. (BDR 3-885)
Summary
AB 309 revises Nevada’s domestic violence protective order procedures, with a narrow focus on temporary orders issued when the alleged perpetrator is in custody. The bill requires those temporary orders to tell an incarcerated respondent that, if still in custody when the hearing on an extended order occurs, they may contest the request by filing a written response with the court. That response is limited to a simple statement indicating whether the person contests the extended order, and it must be filed within 14 calendar days after service at the facility.
The bill also requires the temporary order to warn the incarcerated respondent that if no written response is filed on time, the court may hold the hearing without the person present and may grant the extended order without further input from the incarcerated respondent. The measure applies to protective orders issued on or after October 1, 2025.
Impact
AB 309 amends NRS 33.030, the statute governing temporary and extended orders for protection against domestic violence, by adding notice requirements for incarcerated respondents served with a temporary order when an application for an extended order is filed at the same time. It does not change the substantive grounds for issuing protective orders, but it does alter the procedural rights and warnings provided to respondents in custody, and it sets a specific filing deadline and response format for contesting an extended order. The bill applies prospectively to orders issued on or after October 1, 2025, affecting courts, detention facilities, and parties involved in domestic violence protection proceedings.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the Assembly 42-0 and the Senate 21-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. In the absence of committee transcript debate, the voting record suggests the measure was viewed as a procedural clarification or fairness improvement rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
No formal contention is reflected in the available record, and no committee testimony is provided. The main policy issue implicit in the bill is the balance between ensuring due process for incarcerated respondents and preserving the ability of courts to move forward with protective-order hearings when a respondent does not timely respond. Any concern would likely center on whether the 14-day written-response process is sufficiently clear and workable for incarcerated individuals, versus whether the streamlined procedure adequately protects applicants seeking timely domestic violence relief.