WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2815

PROTECT ORDERS-VIOLATION

104th Regular Session Introduced by Amy Elik

Elevates penalties for violating civil or stalking no-contact orders, with any prior domestic or serious-violent conviction boosting to felony and a mandatory 24-hour minimum jail

0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2815

Summary — HB 2815 (PROTECT ORDERS — VIOLATION)

Status: Referred to Rules Committee; introduced February 2025.
Primary sponsor(s): Rep. Amy Elik (Illinois filing); related/companion(s) noted (SB 1261).
Note: the provided document also contains a separate Arizona bill (also numbered HB 2815) concerning “vloggers; minors; compensation; trust accounts.” That is a distinct measure; the summary below focuses on the PROTECT ORDERS — VIOLATION content (Illinois).

Purpose / Intent

The bill revises criminal penalties for violating civil and stalking no‑contact orders (orders of protection) to (1) clarify the offense classification, (2) increase felony exposure in specified circumstances tied to a defendant’s prior convictions, and (3) require a minimum custodial sanction for repeat violations unless the court finds it unjust.

Key provisions

  • Amends the Criminal Code provisions for:
    • Violation of a civil no contact order (720 ILCS 5/12‑3.8).
    • Violation of a stalking no contact order (720 ILCS 5/12‑3.9).
  • Penalty structure:
    • A violation remains a Class A misdemeanor as the base offense.
    • The offense is elevated to a Class 4 felony if the defendant has any prior conviction for:
    • Domestic battery or violation of an order of protection (or an out‑of‑state offense that would be charged as such), OR
    • A prior conviction for certain enumerated violent or sexual offenses (e.g., attempt/first‑degree murder, kidnapping, criminal sexual assault, aggravated battery, aggravated domestic battery, stalking/aggravated stalking, aggravated arson, aggravated discharge of a firearm, etc.) when committed against a family or household member, or an equivalent out‑of‑state offense.
  • Repeat‑violation custodial minimum:
    • For a respondent’s second or subsequent violation, the court shall impose a minimum of 24 hours’ imprisonment unless it explicitly finds that such a penalty (or an increased penalty) would be manifestly unjust.
  • Sentencing options:
    • In addition to imprisonment, the court may order fines or restitution under the Unified Code of Corrections.
  • Other clarifications:
    • Prosecution for violation of a no‑contact order does not bar prosecution for other crimes arising from the same conduct.
    • Affirms that courts retain inherent authority to enforce orders via contempt; directs liability where a defendant directs a third party to violate an order.

Who is affected

  • Defendants who knowingly violate civil or stalking no‑contact orders in Illinois.
  • Victims of domestic or family/household violence who obtain no‑contact orders — the bill increases potential penalties and creates a mandatory minimum custody period for repeat violators.
  • Courts and prosecutors: must apply the revised classifications and minimum custody rule; may consider prior out‑of‑state convictions that are equivalent.

Procedural / timeline aspects

  • The bill was introduced in early February 2025 (filed by Rep. Amy Elik in the Illinois legislative text). Committee activity recorded in spring 2025 (hearings and consideration noted in April 2025 in the supplied actions). Status shown as referred to Rules Committee; left pending after committee consideration (per provided legislative actions).
  • Companion bill noted as SB 1261.

Potential impacts / considerations

  • Raises felony exposure for violators with prior histories of domestic or serious violent offenses, which may increase prosecutorial charging and sentencing severity in repeat or high‑risk cases.
  • Creates a baseline custodial consequence (24 hours) for second/subsequent violations, potentially increasing immediate incarceration for repeat offenders unless courts make an explicit exception.
  • Broad list of predicate offenses and inclusion of out‑of‑state equivalents may expand the circumstances where a violation is upgraded to felony level.

Note on the Arizona text included in the document: A separate Arizona HB 2815 (Rep. Nancy Gutierrez) would create a new section (23‑330) governing compensation for minors featured in compensated vlogger video content, require trust accounts for a portion of earnings for minors, recordkeeping duties, and deletion rights when the minor reaches majority. That measure is distinct and not part of the Illinois protective‑orders amendments summarized above.

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

Sign in to ask a question.