Representative Kendra Moore (District 23) presented HB 1433, which would add a statutory requirement that law enforcement serve any active criminal warrants when serving temporary orders of protection or when respondents appear for protection hearings. Moore said the bill’s intent is to improve victim safety, reduce wasted law‑enforcement effort, and avoid situations in which a respondent leaves a protection hearing with an unserved criminal warrant.

Proponents told the committee the change is intended to keep victims and the community safer and to reduce redundant service attempts. The sponsor said the bill had been vetted by the Administrative Office of the Courts, judicial counsel, and the Arkansas Police Chiefs Association and described specific safety and resource rationales for having warrants served at the same time as protection notices.

Opponents and committee members pressed on operational questions and potential unintended consequences. Brian Vandiver of Arkansas Advocates for Parental Equality warned the committee the change could “weaponize orders of protection” in family law and create disparate impacts on male respondents; Vandiver argued the bill’s title was misleading because the statute would apply to “any criminal warrant” whether or not it related to the petitioner’s allegations. Representative Gasaway and others asked whether the statute would require arrest on minor misdemeanor warrants and what remedies would exist if law enforcement could not immediately serve a warrant due to staffing or jurisdictional constraints.

Representatives and witnesses acknowledged differences in how civil‑service units and criminal‑warrant units in some sheriff’s offices operate. Barbara Mariani, legal counsel for the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence (speaking with Representative Moore), said courts sometimes request sheriffs to serve protection orders, and in practice those civil units may not always check criminal databases or serve warrants. Mariani said the bill attempts to address situations where civil servers and criminal units are not communicating, describing it as an efficiency and safety measure.

Committee members repeatedly asked what penalties, if any, the bill would impose on law enforcement for failing to serve warrants. Witnesses said the bill imposes no new penalties on officers; courts retain contempt powers or other remedies. Law enforcement representatives said officers have discretion to cite rather than arrest in many misdemeanor situations and that operational constraints (staffing, geography) sometimes make immediate service impractical.

Several committee members raised a separate but related concern: orders of protection are frequently filed in the course of family‑law and custody disputes. Representative Gazzaway and others described how ex parte protection petitions can be used strategically in custody litigation and argued that mandating warrant service at that moment could disproportionately affect respondents who later show those petitions were dropped or dismissed. Committee members asked whether the bill should instead be applied more broadly to all service of process or amended to address those custody concerns.

After lengthy discussion, the sponsor asked to pull HB 1433 down to allow further work with stakeholders and law enforcement; the committee granted that request. The chair instructed committee members to share suggested edits with Representative Moore so the bill could be revised and returned for further consideration.