WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 369

Relating to: a tax credit for employer-provided child care. (FE)

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Scott Allen and 13 co-sponsors

Expands and clarifies how officers enforce out-of-state domestic violence orders, allowing broader evidence and requiring notice and reasonable service when the respondent’s servic

Referred to committee on Rules
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 369

Summary — AB 369 (BDR 3-824)

Title: Revises provisions governing certain orders for protection against domestic violence.
Sponsor: Assemblymember Shea M. Backus
Statute amended: NRS 33.085
Enacted: Approved by the Governor July 14, 2025; chaptered in the 2025 Statutes.

Purpose

AB 369 clarifies and expands how Nevada law‑enforcement officers may recognize and enforce orders for protection against domestic violence issued by courts in other U.S. states, territories, or Indian tribes, and sets out duties for officers when an out‑of‑state order appears valid but service/notice to the respondent is uncertain.

Key provisions

  • Expands acceptable evidence an officer may rely on when enforcing an out‑of‑state protective order (amends NRS 33.085):
    • A hard copy or digital image of the order provided to the officer.
    • Orders included in the state Repository for Information Concerning Orders for Protection or national crime information databases.
    • Oral or written confirmation from the issuing jurisdiction.
    • An examination of the totality of circumstances, expressly including (1) a statement by the person protected that the order remains in effect and (2) any statement by the person against whom the order is being enforced.
  • Creates a required process when an officer cannot confirm the respondent was notified/served:
    • Officer must inform the respondent of the order (verbal notice of terms is deemed sufficient).
    • Officer must make a reasonable effort to serve the order on the respondent.
    • Officer must allow the respondent a reasonable opportunity to comply before taking enforcement action.
    • Officer must document actions taken under this process and cooperate with the issuing court for proof of service.
  • Retains other rules and limits:
    • Courts may decline to enforce certain mutual orders (e.g., where no counter‑petition or no specific mutual finding exists).
    • The statute continues to provide civil and criminal immunity for courts and officers who act in reasonable reliance on the order’s validity, and for employers of such officers.

Who is affected

  • Law enforcement: new, broader evidentiary options and affirmative duties when service is unclear; documentation obligations.
  • Respondents: added procedural protections (notice, attempt at service, reasonable opportunity to comply).
  • Protected persons and victims: easier enforcement across jurisdictions due to expanded evidentiary bases.
  • Courts and record repositories: continued role in verifying jurisdictional authority and serving as information sources.

Procedural / timeline highlights

  • Introduced and referred to Judiciary Committee in early 2025.
  • Senate Amendment No. 607 (technical and clarifying edits) was adopted during the process.
  • Passed both houses with unanimous recorded support and enrolled; approved by Governor on July 14, 2025, and chaptered in the 2025 statutes.

Practical impact

AB 369 is intended to make interstate enforcement of domestic violence protection orders more practical and consistent while adding modest procedural safeguards to reduce enforcement against persons who have not received notice. It balances victim protection and cross‑jurisdictional enforcement with duties aimed at avoiding unexpected enforcement against unserved respondents.

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

Sign in to ask a question.