WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 152

establish provisions relating to the use of military protective orders upon arrest and as evidence in an action for a protection order.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Helene Duhamel and 2 co-sponsors

Establishes rules for using military protective orders at arrest and their admissibility as evidence in protective-order actions.

Withdrawn at the Request of the Prime Sponsor , Passed, S.J. 232
#criminalprocedure #domesticabuse #domesticrelations #militaryaffairs #protectionorder
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 152

Summary of SB 152 (South Dakota, 2026)

Overview

  • Bill title: Establish provisions relating to the use of military protective orders upon arrest and as evidence in an action for a protection order.
  • Session: 2026
  • Jurisdiction: South Dakota
  • Status: Withdrawn at the request of the prime sponsor (as of 2026-02-10); previously moved through the Senate after first reading (2026-01-29). Row indicates it was passed in the Senate Journal (S.J. 232) prior to withdrawal.
  • Sponsors:
    • Primary sponsor not listed here, but co-sponsors include:
    • David Kull
    • Peri Pourier
    • Helene Duhamel

Note: The bill text is not provided in the materials. The summary below reflects the stated purpose and typical provisions such measures contain, based on the title and the available action history.

Purpose and Intent

  • The bill aims to establish provisions governing the use of military protective orders (MPOs). Specifically, it concerns:
    • The use of MPOs upon arrest.
    • The admissibility or consideration of MPOs as evidence in actions for protective orders (civil protection orders or similar legal actions).
  • In practical terms, the bill would create or codify rules about when an MPO can be issued after an arrest and how MPOs can be used in related court proceedings to protect victims, ensure safety, or regulate conduct.

Key Provisions (Conceptual Based on Title)

Because the full text is not provided, the following are typical components such a bill would address. If enacted, these would be included or refined:

  1. Definitions

    • Clarification of what constitutes a “military protective order” (MPO) within the state framework.
    • Distinctions between MPOs and standard civilian protective orders.

  2. Issuance Upon Arrest

    • Criteria under which law enforcement can or must issue an MPO at the time of an arrest.
    • Authority, procedures, and timelines for issuing MPOs.
    • Required safeguards for the rights of all parties (e.g., notice, opportunity to be heard, appeal rights).

  3. Use as Evidence

    • Admissibility standards for MPOs as evidence in proceedings for protective orders.
    • Conditions under which an MPO can or cannot be admitted, such as relevance, relevance balancing, and privacy or safety considerations.
    • Potential limitations to prevent unfair use, such as exclusion of protected information or outdated orders.

  4. Relation to Other Protective Orders

    • Interaction with civilian protective orders, temporary protective orders, or restraining orders.
    • Coordinated procedures between military and civilian jurisdictions, if applicable.

  5. Enforcement and Penalties

    • Consequences for violating an MPO.
    • Enforcement mechanisms and cross-jurisdictional cooperation if the subject is a service member.

  6. Effective Date and Transition

    • If enacted, whether the provisions apply prospectively or retroactively.
    • Transition timelines for agencies and courts to implement the new rules.

Affected Parties and Stakeholders

  • Service members and military installations within South Dakota, where MPOs may be issued or recognized.
  • Law enforcement agencies responsible for issuing MPOs at arrest and enforcing orders.
  • Victims and petitioners seeking protection, who may be affected by MPO admissibility in court.
  • Judiciary and family/protective order courts interpreting and applying MPO provisions.
  • Military justice and civilian courts coordination bodies, if cross-jurisdictional processes are involved.

Procedural and Timeline Highlights

  • The action history shows:
    • First reading and referral to Senate Judiciary on 2026-01-29.
    • A subsequent status indicating the bill was filed as passed in S.J. 232 but later withdrawn on 2026-02-10 at the request of the prime sponsor.
  • If reintroduced, typical timelines would include committee hearings, potential amendments, floor votes, and final passage before moving to the House (if applicable) and ultimately to the governor for signature. The withdrawal indicates the bill did not advance to enactment in its current form during this session.

Potential Impacts and Considerations

  • Public safety: By clarifying MPO use and admissibility, the bill could streamline protections for victims and ensure timely protective measures.
  • Due process concerns: Provisions would need to balance swift protective action with rights of the accused.
  • Military-civilian coordination: If applicable, the bill could improve cross-system communication but would require careful implementation to respect different legal frameworks.
  • Federal alignment: Depending on how MPOs relate to federal or Department of Defense policies, there may be alignment considerations.

If you can provide the full bill text or specific statutory language, I can deliver a more precise, line-by-line summary of provisions, amendments, and exact effects.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.