Panel advances bill making violation of certain court stay-away orders a new-law violation amid due‑process concerns
January 21, 2026 | 2026 Legislature FL, Florida
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 »
Representative Daley presented CS for HB 397, saying the measure "creates a new law violation for violating a court's stay away order when the underlying charge is a, enumerated violent offense." He described the proposal as a way to give police officers an on-scene mechanism to remove a person who violates a court-ordered stay-away or no-contact condition tied to serious violent charges.
Members questioned the bill's interplay with existing pretrial mechanisms, probable-cause standards and whether the measure should include affirmative defenses. Representative Rayner and other members asked whether officers would have adequate information on-scene to determine who was telling the truth and whether an affirmative-defense provision should be added to avoid criminalizing victims or others who might invite contact.
Aaron Waite, appearing for the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, testified in opposition. Waite warned the committee that a no-contact condition arising as a release condition or at an initial appearance is often imposed before a full adversarial hearing and that treating a violation as a first-degree misdemeanor immediately "can be weaponized" against defendants who have not yet had their day in court. "We believe it's perhaps problematic to switch this to the automatic first degree misdemeanor right out of the gate for violating that," Waite said, citing concerns about immediate arrest without judicial review and the risk of false allegations prompting detention.
Other members acknowledged the sponsor's public-safety rationale but urged additional work on immunity language and affirmative defenses. Representative Gottlieb and others said they were sympathetic to the bill's intent but sought parity with existing restraining-order statutes and potential adjustments to officer-immunity provisions.
After closing remarks from Representative Daley reiterating the desire to provide on-scene remedies for victims, the subcommittee recorded a roll-call vote of 10 yeas and 3 nays and reported the bill favorably.
Why it matters: The bill changes how violations of court-ordered stay-away conditions are treated in cases where the underlying charge is a violent offense. Supporters argue it closes a practical gap for immediate protection of victims; opponents say it risks criminalizing people without adequate judicial process and expressed concerns about immunity for arresting officers.
Next steps: The bill was reported favorably from the subcommittee and will continue through normal House committee steps. Sponsors and opponents signaled willingness to continue negotiations on affirmative defenses and immunity language.
Members questioned the bill's interplay with existing pretrial mechanisms, probable-cause standards and whether the measure should include affirmative defenses. Representative Rayner and other members asked whether officers would have adequate information on-scene to determine who was telling the truth and whether an affirmative-defense provision should be added to avoid criminalizing victims or others who might invite contact.
Aaron Waite, appearing for the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, testified in opposition. Waite warned the committee that a no-contact condition arising as a release condition or at an initial appearance is often imposed before a full adversarial hearing and that treating a violation as a first-degree misdemeanor immediately "can be weaponized" against defendants who have not yet had their day in court. "We believe it's perhaps problematic to switch this to the automatic first degree misdemeanor right out of the gate for violating that," Waite said, citing concerns about immediate arrest without judicial review and the risk of false allegations prompting detention.
Other members acknowledged the sponsor's public-safety rationale but urged additional work on immunity language and affirmative defenses. Representative Gottlieb and others said they were sympathetic to the bill's intent but sought parity with existing restraining-order statutes and potential adjustments to officer-immunity provisions.
After closing remarks from Representative Daley reiterating the desire to provide on-scene remedies for victims, the subcommittee recorded a roll-call vote of 10 yeas and 3 nays and reported the bill favorably.
Why it matters: The bill changes how violations of court-ordered stay-away conditions are treated in cases where the underlying charge is a violent offense. Supporters argue it closes a practical gap for immediate protection of victims; opponents say it risks criminalizing people without adequate judicial process and expressed concerns about immunity for arresting officers.
Next steps: The bill was reported favorably from the subcommittee and will continue through normal House committee steps. Sponsors and opponents signaled willingness to continue negotiations on affirmative defenses and immunity language.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
