Texas House Bill HB 3660

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 3/4/25

Caption

Relating to protective orders prohibiting offenses motivated by bias or prejudice.

Summary

HB 3660 creates a new protective-order framework in the Code of Criminal Procedure for cases involving offenses committed because of bias or prejudice. It allows a person to request a protective order in criminal proceedings involving certain offenses, including Title 5 Penal Code offenses and specified property and arson-related offenses, when the defendant is alleged to have acted out of bias or prejudice. The court must issue the order if it finds probable cause that such an offense occurred, that it was bias-motivated, and that the defendant’s conduct suggests a likelihood of future bias-motivated offending. The bill also establishes rules for how long these protective orders may last, allowing them to remain in effect for the lives of the offender and victim or for a shorter period set by the court, with a default duration of two years if no period is stated. It permits the protected person to seek rescission at any time. Enforcement provisions largely track existing family-violence protective order procedures, but with changes tailored to bias-motivated offenses, including specialized warning language, service by a constable, and notice to the Department of Public Safety. The bill also amends the Penal Code to make violating such an order an offense when the person commits a covered bias-motivated crime, communicates in prohibited ways, or goes near the protected person’s residence or workplace.

Impact

HB 3660 would expand Texas law by adding a distinct protective-order mechanism for victims of bias- or prejudice-motivated offenses, separate from family-violence protections. It would affect the Code of Criminal Procedure’s Chapter 7B and Penal Code Section 25.071, and it would create new duties for courts, constables, court clerks, and DPS in processing and tracking these orders. The bill would also create a new basis for criminal liability when a person violates one of these orders by committing a subsequent covered offense or engaging in prohibited contact or proximity conduct.

Sentiment

The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented opposition or support in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, the measure appears aimed at strengthening protections for victims of hate- or bias-driven conduct and at giving prosecutors and courts a clearer enforcement tool. The absence of transcripts or vote history means sentiment cannot be measured directly from the record provided.

Contention

The main policy questions likely concern how broadly the protective-order remedy should apply and whether the bill appropriately extends a family-violence-style process to bias-motivated crimes. Potential points of contention include the evidentiary threshold for finding probable cause and future risk, the possibility of long or lifetime orders, and the administrative burden on courts, constables, and DPS. Another possible issue is the scope of covered offenses, since the bill applies to specified offenses beyond the core violent-crime provisions, which could raise questions about reach and enforcement.