Senate advances bill aligning protection-order statutes, restores 72-hour hearing period
January 17, 2025 | Senate, Committees, Legislative, Wyoming
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
On Jan. 17, 2025, the Wyoming Senate Committee of the Whole voted to recommend passage of Senate File 7, a judiciary-sponsored bill that amends protection-order statutes to bring Title 7 (assault-related protections) and Title 35 (domestic-violence protections) into alignment.
The bill matters because it harmonizes two statutory schemes that govern protection orders, clarifies who may receive services, and shortens the interim hearing timeline to ensure quicker judicial review when protection orders are sought.
Senate File 7’s standing committee amendment makes several textual and substantive changes intended to align the two titles and restore existing timelines. As explained on the floor by Senator Crump, the amendment removes an age limitation that had been proposed and reinstates the statute’s original language so services remain available to anyone impacted, rather than constraining eligibility to a specified age cutoff. Crump said: “What we’re doing, mister chairman, is bringing title 7 and title 35 in alignment with each other.”
The amendment also changes the hearing timeline. The interim recommendation had proposed a 10‑day period for decision; the standing committee amendment restores the original 72‑hour target for action on certain petitions because committee members concluded 10 days was too long for urgent protection-order requests. Crump noted the committee “moved it back to the original 72 hours.”
On service, the amendment specifies that notice for an extended protection order should be attempted via regular mail and by certified mail; certified mail provides documentary evidence of the attempt even when regular mail is refused. Crump described that approach as a practical way “to give service to somebody on a protection order that was gonna be extended.”
No substantive opposition to the amendment was recorded in the transcript; the standing committee amendment was adopted by voice vote and Senator Olson moved that the Committee of the Whole report the bill favorably. Senate File 7 was reported “do pass amended.”
The bill now proceeds with the committee’s favorable recommendation; the transcript does not record roll-call tallies for the amendment or committee recommendation.
The bill matters because it harmonizes two statutory schemes that govern protection orders, clarifies who may receive services, and shortens the interim hearing timeline to ensure quicker judicial review when protection orders are sought.
Senate File 7’s standing committee amendment makes several textual and substantive changes intended to align the two titles and restore existing timelines. As explained on the floor by Senator Crump, the amendment removes an age limitation that had been proposed and reinstates the statute’s original language so services remain available to anyone impacted, rather than constraining eligibility to a specified age cutoff. Crump said: “What we’re doing, mister chairman, is bringing title 7 and title 35 in alignment with each other.”
The amendment also changes the hearing timeline. The interim recommendation had proposed a 10‑day period for decision; the standing committee amendment restores the original 72‑hour target for action on certain petitions because committee members concluded 10 days was too long for urgent protection-order requests. Crump noted the committee “moved it back to the original 72 hours.”
On service, the amendment specifies that notice for an extended protection order should be attempted via regular mail and by certified mail; certified mail provides documentary evidence of the attempt even when regular mail is refused. Crump described that approach as a practical way “to give service to somebody on a protection order that was gonna be extended.”
No substantive opposition to the amendment was recorded in the transcript; the standing committee amendment was adopted by voice vote and Senator Olson moved that the Committee of the Whole report the bill favorably. Senate File 7 was reported “do pass amended.”
The bill now proceeds with the committee’s favorable recommendation; the transcript does not record roll-call tallies for the amendment or committee recommendation.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting