An act relating to after-hours access to orders against sexual assault
H.64 would require the Vermont Court Administrator to create procedures that allow a person seeking an order against sexual assault to obtain emergency relief outside normal court hours, including on weekends and holidays. The bill focuses on ex parte emergency relief orders and directs the court to set up a process for receiving requests through an authorized person, including by reliable electronic means when a secure in-person setting is not available.
Under the bill, the applicant’s affidavit may be sworn by telephone, and the authorized person must transmit the complaint and affidavit to a judicial officer by telephone or other reliable electronic means. The judicial officer would decide whether to grant or deny the order based only on the affidavit materials provided, and any issued order would then be sent to law enforcement for service. The bill is intended to make it easier and faster for survivors of sexual assault to access court protection during times when the courthouse is closed, and it would take effect on September 1, 2025.
The bill would amend 12 V.S.A. § 5136(b) to add a specific after-hours access procedure for orders against sexual assault, expanding the court system’s administrative obligations and formalizing emergency electronic and telephonic filing practices. It would affect the Court Administrator, judicial officers, law enforcement agencies, and applicants seeking sexual-assault-related protective orders by creating a statewide process for after-hours intake, oath administration, judicial review, and service of orders.
No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text and purpose statement, the measure appears to be framed as a victim-access and court-procedure improvement, suggesting a generally protective and supportive policy posture toward survivors seeking urgent relief.
The bill’s likely points of contention are procedural and operational rather than substantive: whether courts can reliably administer oaths and process affidavits by telephone or electronic means after hours, whether secure settings and staffing are sufficient, and how to ensure due process and accuracy when a judicial officer rules solely on affidavit contents. Any concerns would likely come from court administrators, judicial officers, or law enforcement agencies responsible for implementing the new after-hours workflow, while advocates for survivors would likely support the expanded access.