Relating to permanent restraining orders for crime victims; prescribing an effective date.
Summary
SB 1147 creates a new process for crime victims to obtain permanent restraining orders against convicted defendants. At sentencing, if the defendant is convicted of one of several specified serious offenses and the victim requests it, the court must issue an order prohibiting contact. The bill also allows victims in qualifying older cases—where judgment was already entered before the bill’s effective date, or where no order was requested at sentencing—to petition the circuit court later for the same type of no-contact order.
The measure applies to a defined list of offenses, including certain Measure 11 crimes, felony sex crimes, felony strangulation, felony stalking, first-degree invasion of personal privacy, domestic-violence fourth-degree assault, and other felonies involving deadly weapons or serious physical injury. These orders are intended to last for the defendant’s lifetime unless terminated by court order based on specified circumstances, such as the victim’s request, the defendant’s showing that the conviction was overturned or pardoned, or the victim’s death. The bill also requires standardized court forms, prohibits filing/service/hearing fees, and directs sheriffs and courts to enter and remove orders in state and federal law-enforcement databases.
Impact
SB 1147 would add a new victim-protection remedy to Oregon criminal procedure by requiring or allowing permanent restraining orders in qualifying cases and by making those orders enforceable statewide, including on tribal land, once entered into law-enforcement systems. It would affect sentencing practices, court clerks, county sheriffs, the Department of State Police’s Law Enforcement Data System, and the National Crime Information Center database, while also creating a post-conviction petition process for older cases. The bill would not create a general restraining-order regime, but rather a targeted, lifetime no-contact order tied to specified serious convictions.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a victim-safety and accountability bill with a strong protective orientation. The naming of the act as “Kayleigh’s Law” suggests a memorial or advocacy-driven effort, and the structure of the bill indicates support for making protection automatic or readily available for victims of serious crimes. No contrary sentiment is documented in the provided record.
Contention
The main policy questions raised by the bill’s structure are the breadth and duration of the restraining orders, especially the lifetime default and the inclusion of a broad category of felony offenses involving weapons or serious injury. Potential points of contention also include the retroactive petition process for previously adjudicated cases, the administrative burden on courts and sheriffs, and the balance between victim protection and defendant due-process interests when orders are entered at sentencing or later without a separate filing fee. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, no specific legislator or stakeholder objections can be identified from the record.
Enacting the gun violence restraining order act to authorize the issuance of protective orders prohibiting the acquisition and possession of firearms by certain individuals.