A bill that would make it easier for victims and courts to file and process protection orders is heading to the Wyoming House after unanimously sailing through the Senate.
Senate File 7 would expand jurisdictional boundaries for filing and serving protection orders, and also will specify who is able to file a petition on behalf of a victim, among other measures.
The bill, which originated from the Wyoming Judicial Branch, passed 30-0 with one senator absent Wednesday after unanimously sweeping through committee last week by a vote of 5-0.
It’s one of three bills this session that would tighten perceived loopholes in protection orders.
The others include Senate File 8, which would make protection orders effective during appeals or reviews of them; and Senate File 12, allowing victims to file permanent protection orders.
Victim Advocates In Support
Victim advocates are championing the bill, particularly the redefining of jurisdictional boundaries.
Sandy Stevens, director of Crook County Family Violence and Sexual Assault Services, said that expanding court jurisdiction will be helpful for victims and the courts.
The law now requires protection orders be filed in the jurisdiction where the alleged victim lives or perpetrator is found.
The new law would allow victims of sexual assault, stalking and domestic violence to file a protection order in the circuit court where they or the perpetrator live or are found, or where the alleged incident took place.
“This would be a major improvement,” Stevens said.
She used a recent example of a woman who had been working temporarily in Sundance when she was threatened by her husband. No arrests were made, and she chose to move to Cheyenne to live with family where she attempted to file a protection order against him.
She initially was told by a Cheyenne judge that she’d have to file an order of protection in Crook County where she’d been at the time of the incident.
However, when she tried to file in the Sundance court, she was told by the judge that the court didn’t have jurisdiction because she no longer lives in the county.
“They finally got it resolved to where she was able to file in Cheyenne,” Stevens said. “So, I think this is just a really big benefit for victims and for our advocates to be able to better able to serve our clients.”
Elisa Butler, state court administrator for the Wyoming Judicial Branch, further explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee during a hearing last week how this amendment would benefit the courts.
“Often, you may have a victim or a perpetrator in a location where they are or where the actual incidents are occurring, so that’s where the evidence lives,” Butler said. “And, so most often that may be the most appropriate court to bring that action in.”
Other Provisions
The proposed law would also expand authority over who is able to file a protection order on behalf of a victim to include a district attorney, any person with legal authority over the victim in cases of minors or vulnerable adults or any other victim who is unable to file due to age, health or disabilities.
Other provisions included changes to how protection orders and extensions are served to respondents.
Additionally, along with the court providing copies of the order to local law enforcement to personally serve protection orders to perpetrators, new language in the bill would also permit the court to that person or their attorney in person or remotely at the time the order is granted.
In the case of modified, extended or terminated protection orders, the proposed law would require the order to be mailed to the last known address on file for the subject by certified and first-class mail.
Not All Amendments Pass
The bill draft that cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 17 was a pared down version of its original form.
As initially written, the bill had asked that hearings for protection orders in circuit court be moved from the required 72 hours upon filing up to 10 days to ease the burden on courts.
Butler told the committee that when a protection order is filed in circuit court, that docket must be cleared to allow for the 72-hour window for the matter to go before the judge, which requires constant rescheduling of the court docket.
Sen. Jared Olsen, R-Laramie, questioned the reasoning behind the leap from three days to 10.
“I mean, a 72-hour jump to 10 days, that’s a really big jump,” Olsen said.
John Kolb, Republican senator from Sweetwater County, likewise questioned where the 10-day mark came from, to which Butler explained that it was anecdotal from the judges and clerks based on their experience.
Too Risky And Costly
Yvonne Swanson, executive director of the Advocacy and Resource Center of Sheridan, appeared before the committee via Zoom to object to increasing the time to 10 days.
Swanson said that not only would it be financially prohibitive to potentially house a victim for 10 days while they are waiting for their case to be heard, but it may also potentially put victims at risk.
“I want to point out how dangerous it is for our victims when they file a protection order, and how long the 72-hour wait already feels when we have victims calling our crisis line asking for an emergency protection order,” she said.
She asked the committee to prioritize victim safety by not increasing the time frame by seven days.
“I urge you to oppose this amendment and give victims in our community peace of mind and knowing that these systems that are put into place to protect them are working the way that they can be,” she said.
Another amendment that also failed would have limited the court’s ability to provide a court-appointed attorney to victims 21 and younger.
Swanson said she was unaware that victims of any age had access to court-appointed attorneys to assist in proceedings, and in her experience none had ever been offered one.
Other Bills
Another protection order bill sailing through the Senate would close a loophole for protection orders when under review or on appeal.
SF 8 cleared a second reading Thursday after clearing the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 4-0 with one senator excused.
It would dictate that protection orders remain effective during appeal or review by the courts.
Speaking on behalf of the bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Lisa Peterman, director of Crisis Intervention Services in Park County, referenced a particular case that sparked the bill and that was covered by Cowboy State Daily regarding 64-year-old Randall Bailey in Cody.
In this case, Bailey’s ex-wife had a six-month stalking protection order against him that he had appealed and that was under review. Because it was under appeal and set to expire, the victim had filed for an extension.
Park County law enforcement had questions about whether that extension was enforceable, Peterman explained, as the original case was under appeal.
Meanwhile, Bailey violated the protection order at which point police served a search warrant on his house to find homemade explosives and several firearms.
“Our law enforcement need every tool at their disposal to enforce these orders, because we have a loophole (and) Senate File 8 is a very simple fix,” Peterman said.
Still to be discussed by the Senate Judiciary Committee is Senate File 12, which would provide courts with the option to make protection orders permanent. Under current laws,
victims of sexual assault, stalking and domestic violence have the option to apply for protection orders for up to a year or three years.
Jen Kocher can be reached at jen@cowboystatedaily.com.
