H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications

What this bill does

This bill clarifies several Utah criminal and domestic violence laws. It lets certain combined crimes be tried in the same judicial district, allows workplace protective orders to cover nonprofit volunteers, and sets pretrial detention rules for repeat domestic violence offenders.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 9 yes, 0 no, 2 absentHouse Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to change the bill · Feb 19, 2026Who voted how
• 9 yes, 0 no, 2 absentHouse Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 19, 2026Who voted how
• 66 yes, 0 no, 9 absentFinal House vote · Feb 24, 2026Who voted how
• 7 yes, 0 no, 2 absentSenate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to approve it · Mar 4, 2026Who voted how
• 19 yes, 6 no, 4 absentFinal Senate vote · Mar 6, 2026Who voted how
• 53 yes, 10 no, 12 absentHouse vote to accept the other chamber's changes · Mar 6, 2026

Hearings and debates

• Feb 19, 2026 House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (29 turns)

  1. Vice Chair Strong (presiding)1:59:14

     Thank you, representative. Okay, we're gonna go to Representative MacPherson. Reminder. We Juab, we still have three items on the agenda. Um, these should be much shorter, so we're gonna try to move through those quickly. Representative MacPherson, go ahead.

  2. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:59:27

     Thank you Chair members of the committee. This is a policy dense bill, but I promise it will be quick. I have will still with me because there's a couple of sections of this bill that, um, have been asked by different stakeholders for us to, um, clarify some additional language that's in existing code. Um, and I'd like to turn it over to Will to explain that first portion of it before I ask swap to come up, if that's okay, Mr. Chair, to go through the remainder of the policy.

  3. William Hains, Attorney General's Office1:59:53

     Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, again, William Haynes with the Attorney General's office. Um, so the first provision of this bill addresses venue in the current statute. There's, uh, a provision that's unclear, refers to, uh, a defendant having the right to be tried in the county district or precinct where the crime was committed. And the word district is unclear. There's been litigation about what that means, whether it's a judicial district or prosecution district or something else entirely. And so this bill would clarify that in the statute, when they say district, they mean judicial district. And it also would prevent, uh, provide a, a standard of, um, uh, guidance as to when, um, it's appropriate or even required to re to try, um, a a case outside of the county where the crime was committed but was still within the same judicial district. There's two scenarios, um, where this might be appropriate or even required. Um, generally there's already a statute on the books that says when it's appropriate to combine, um, multiple, uh, crimes into one trial. And this would clarify that if, if that standard is met. Um, and if the multiple prosecuting agencies agree, then it can be tried outside the county or precinct as long as it's in within the same judicial district. And the second scenario is when the statute actually requires multiple crimes to be tried. In the same case that says, as long as it's within the same judicial district, then that applies and they have to be tried in the same trial, even if it's outside the county or precinct, but still within the same judicial district. Perfect. Thank you.

  4. Rep. Matt MacPherson2:01:31

     And then ask Ryan to come up here and introduce himself. Um, I, I will, uh, tell the committee I'm looking at the second substitute. Um, yeah, I saw that. And that will be, uh, where all this, uh, these policy discussions are coming from. I've got a PowerPoint to help us hopefully be a little bit more efficient in understanding, uh, the bill is that I can't see behind. They can, Can see. It's up. Excellent. Um, Need to introduce yourself, Ryan.

  5. Ryan Robinson, Policy Director, SWAP2:02:11

     You bet. My name's Ryan Robinson. I am the, uh, policy director for SWAP and, um, presenting this on behalf of swap. It's one of our four prior priority bills for this session. Uh, I'm gonna let Carl take a break from, you're probably hear tired of hearing from him on every bill. So happy to present, uh, on this bill. Uh, the bill has eight policy objectives. It's primarily a domestic violence bill, but, uh, as you heard from Will, we've added one or two things, uh, in addition through substitutes. Um, and I'm gonna take you through briefly each one of those, uh, policy objectives. Uh, the one that's probably most important to, uh, prosecutors, uh, is this one. Uh, this bill creates a presumption for pretrial detention on, uh, class A and felony domestic violence cases. If there is substantial evidence that the crime was committed and that the defendant is either on probation already for domestic violence or, uh, has a pending charge, uh, for domestic violence and is on pretrial release for that offense. Um, this is, uh, important to us. We see kind of at times the revolving door of domestic violence offenders who get arrested and released maybe with a jail release agreement, uh, and on a first offense that's often appropriate, but then three days later, or sometimes three hours later, they're back on a jail release violation or a new assault. And, uh, we have obviously those kind of serial domestic violence offenders who, uh, you know, sometimes because they're seeing different judges each time kind of escape the consequence of, of a more severe pretrial detention to protect the victim and society from their repeated uh, conduct. Um, the second, uh, policy addition is adding, uh, to the list of crimes that we, uh, consider as domestic violence. It adds, uh, our privacy offenses of which there are just two or three in our code, but probably the most common one is putting tracking devices on someone else's car or putting like spyware or tracking devices on someone's property. Uh, kind of classic domestic violence, stalking behavior. Uh, we, it also adds vulnerable adult and elder abusive offenses such as assaulting, uh, your elderly grandparents or something like that, that would be, uh, now explicitly a domestic violence offense. The third, uh, clarifies that, uh, an adult sibling who, uh, uh, commits a domestic violence act against a younger sibling. You know, imagine, uh, well, in my family I have a 22-year-old son and a 16-year-old son. And if the older one, uh, uh, abused or beat up, uh, his younger brother, uh, in a juvenile context, we don't want that to be domestic violence. But when they're adult, uh, perpetrator that we're, we're asking that that be considered a domestic violence offense. Um, the next one is about the jail release agreement. The, the status quo of domestic violence is that when you're booked on a domestic violence offense, you're issued a jail release agreement, uh, where you agree not to have contact with the victim and tell your next court date. And often if the children were witnesses to that crime, we include or not, we, the officer, would include the children on the jail release agreement. Uh, so they couldn't have contact with them until their first court date. Now often that's a, that's a good policy. The the trick sometimes is when the domestic violence is not like intimate partner violence, but more, uh, atypical like sibling. You know, an adult sister beats up an adult sister or a roommate beats up a roommate, and the children who maybe did see the event are the suspect's children, but there's no other parent involved to take care of this child. And so, um, even in that temporary trait timeframe, uh, before they see a judge, we don't wanna leave a child without a parent to provide care for, uh, for their children. And so this exempts kind of that, uh, non-intimate partner domestic violence situation from requiring, you know, uh, a JRA to include children. Well, uh, this, this next one's really I think fixing an oversight of what's already intended. The, the jail release agreement, uh, law allows the victim to waive, uh, most of the portions of a jail release agreement so that the victim or the perpetrator could come home or the alleged offender could come home. If the victim wants that and waives that, uh, portion of the jail release agreement, the victim can also waive that on behalf of her children or his or her children. Uh, the, the law was written, I think maybe just miswritten, and that technically it also allows the perpetrator to waive that on behalf of their children. And we, we wanna clarify that that was not what was ever intended and that, uh, the, the perpetrator cannot waive a jail really, uh, jail release agreement only, only a victim, uh, on behalf of the children. Uh, this one is not really domestic violence per se, although some stalking is of course, domestic violence. Uh, currently, uh, a police officer, when they make an arrest for, uh, certain crimes, as I've mentioned, uh, they issue a jail release agreement. Normally that's for domestic violence, but it also is for sex offenses, child abuse and vulnerable adult abuse. Uh, this policy portion of the bill would also add stalking, uh, so that people who are arrested for stalking or put on notice, they can't go back to the person's home who they've been stalking, at least until they see the judge. Uh, that's a good thing. Uh, but I was also promised a short presentation. And the LA two more policies venue was already covered by will. The last one adds, uh, volunteers to the workplace protective order, uh, so that a volunteer could also be protected from workplace violence.

  6. Vice Chair Strong (presiding)2:08:44

     All right, thank you. Does that conclude your presentation representative? Yes. Uh, Yes. Unless there's any questions, because We have some questions. Representative Stoddard go.

  7. Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:08:52

     Thank you. Uh, and either who want to answer it, um, I appreciate what you're trying to do with the JRA on behalf of the children. Um, so how would a child potentially waive that? Is there like a guardian ad litem situation? What, how do you envision, or is it just it's minor child? It's not waivable

  8. Ryan Robinson, Policy Director, SWAP2:09:09

     No, the, the victim. So for example, if dad hits his wife, uh, and children saw it, then the wife and the children would be on the jail release agreement. The wife could in, could waive the jail release agreement on behalf of the children. In other words, the victim can currently waive it and they still would be able to waive it. It's simply the perpetrator couldn't be the one who makes the waiver.

  9. Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:09:34

     Okay. I apologize. I thought you said neither parent could, if the child was listed as a victim, and I was like, okay, how does this play out practically? That's probably my bad. No, and

  10. Ryan Robinson, Policy Director, SWAP2:09:41

      I think this has actually played out already too, so it it is trying to fix a problem that has existed now. Yeah.

  11. Vice Chair Strong (presiding)2:09:48

      I appreciate that. Thank you. Is there any further questions from the committee? Okay. Seeing none, is there anyone here from the public to speak to this one? Leave This on. Okay. Coming up guys, we're gonna go minute and 30.

  12. Marlesse Jones, Director, Domestic Violence Coalition2:10:06

      Marice Jones, director of the Victim Services Commission. Uh, we really appreciate Representative MacPherson and all the effort he's put into this. As you can see, there's a lot of small changes that have a significant impact on survivors of domestic violence and other crimes, including stalking. And so this really is a cleanup bill in ways to clarify and to make it safer and, um, have expectations be managed in, in these instances that make a difference. So the Victim Services Commission, um, we do support this. We support the changes. Uh, we had feedback from a lot of individuals, including survivors of domestic violence as well as victim advocates that work with these types of offenses. And many of these changes are, are long overdue in effectively providing safer environments for survivors of domestic violence. Thank you.

  13. Vice Chair Strong (presiding)2:10:59

      Thank you for not using your entire time allotment.

  14. Brett Robinson, Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office2:11:12

      Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Brett Robinson. I'm the Chief Policy Advisor at the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office, and we are also in favor of this bill. Um, our Family Protection Unit files over 2,900 cases a year of domestic violence cases, cases. And we've reviewed this part, um, this bill particularly with an eye toward the, um, expansion of the no bail holds that are possible in repeat domestic violence cases. And in speaking with the team, um, domestic violence cases are very difficult and it's very hard on victims to be willing to come forward and having an option, um, like this will increase the, perhaps their willingness to come forward. And we view this as an important tool, um, to, uh, maintain public safety. So we'd encourage it. Support. Thank you.

  15. Vice Chair Strong (presiding)2:11:57

      You, hey, got two more.

  16. Erin Jemison, Utah Domestic Violence Coalition2:12:02

      Oh, geez. I try not to fall. Uh, good morning, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee. Aaron Jemison, director of Public Policy at the Utah Domestic Violence Coalition. Um, again, appreciate Representative MacPherson working with us on this bill. Um, there's a few small surprises this morning, but in re reviewing them quickly, I don't think we have concerns with them. Um, our main, uh, priorities with this bill are around the repeat offender, um, provision that a few folks have spoken to. I don't think I need to go into more detail on that. As well as, um, looking at, uh, a cleanup around predominant aggressor, there was some language inconsistencies, um, in the statute that I think were just previous oversights, as well as adding that, that, um, privacy offense as a domestic violence crime that, that prosecutors can use as an additional tool. Those are very, very, very, very common, um, in domestic violence situations and becoming more so. So we support the bill and would ask for your Yes, vote. Thank you.

  17. Steve Burton, Utah Defense Attorney Association2:13:06

      Steve Burton with the Utah Defense Attorney Association. Um, and I'm not asking the committee to vote against this bill. In fact, the sponsor has been very good to include us in some of the discussions. Um, I did just want to, uh, maybe draw the committee's attention. Do I, wow, that was quick. That was kidding. He was targeted. That was Aaron's. Alright. Um, the, uh, so, so the legislature has created a statutory framework where, um, it treats domestic violence in a different way and requires certain mandatory arrests or citations when a report of domestic violence has occurred. Yeah. And it requires certain treatment that's focused on like a power dynamic between an intimate couple where one person may have control over another person. And so the, the treatment is often focused on that power dynamic and how to have, uh, decrease the conflict or decrease that power imbalance. Um, and so when we expand the definition of domestic violence, oftentimes we are unintentionally adding situations like brother on brother type situations that weren't meant to be covered by the domestic violence laws that the legislature established. And, and the purpose of the domestic violence laws isn't necessarily targeted at, you know, roommates and, and brothers in that type of situation. So our hope is to work with the sponsor to try to maybe, um, narrow that in a little bit and not, not be overly broad on domestic fines to include things that aren't, that one's real meant to be Included. Yeah, that one's real. Hey, sorry about that.

  18. Vice Chair Strong (presiding)2:14:41

      Uh, Steve, um, I don't think we have any questions, um, but we're gonna go ahead and turn Okay. To the, to the committee, uh, for discussion or action. Representative Stoddard, that was yours. Sorry. You're too late.

  19. Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:14:54

      I would move that we adopt sub two on HP 5 39. That's an order. Would you like to speak to it? He already spoke to it. Okay.

  20. Vice Chair Strong (presiding)2:15:01

      I need a discussion of the motion. Okay. Representative, Thank you. Waive You place the motion alls in favor of adopting the second substitute, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed?

  21. Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:15:14

      Okay, it's done. Representative Stoddard, I move that we favorably recommend House Bill 5 39 second substitute.

  22. Vice Chair Strong (presiding)2:15:21

      That's in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  23. Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:15:23

      I would, I think there's a lot of good in here. Um, I do hope you'll keep working with the defense attorneys because I think the definitions are a little concerning, but let's get it going.

  24. Vice Chair Strong (presiding)2:15:31

      Okay. The motion is that we pass out second substitute 5 39. Any discussion of the motion? I'll say, I'll just repeat that.

  25. Unknown speaker2:15:39speaker not certain

      Yeah, there's, I would probably need to tighten up a little bit of it, but, uh, we're getting close, so I'd recommend that we move forward with that.

  26. Vice Chair Strong (presiding)2:15:46

      Uh, would you like some Juab?

  27. Rep. Matt MacPherson2:15:47speaker not certain

      Just very, very quickly, I know that we're out of time. There is a, um, a long standing issue we have right now in our code and it comes to the definition of Cohabitants and this creates a lot of confusion around some of this language. So some of these definitions do have to be likely change. It's something I'm hoping that this committee can study over interim with law enforcement. There's some resistance to changing those definitions just simply because of how ingrained they are in the law enforcement practice. So with that in mind, the definitions do definitely need to tighten up. We are working on, um, doing that with all the partners involved. But I would say that also we, we do have some outstanding longstanding, uh, issues and definitions here that this cleans up a lot of them. We are taking a step in the right direction, uh, and I hope we'll continue working on that with law enforcement, with all the other partners through the interim as well.

  28. Vice Chair Strong (presiding)2:16:39

      Okay. Thank you Representative Sum. Okay, I'll go ahead and place the motion. Alls in favor of pass, passing out HB 5 39. Second substitute. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Any opposed? Okay. It's unanimous. Thank you. Seven.

  29. Vice Chair Strong (presiding)2:16:51

      Thank you. We'll move to item number four now on the agenda, HB 4 0 2, turn the chair over to Mark

• Feb 24, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (15 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker1:02:24speaker not certain

     Second Substitute House Bill 5 39 Public safety modifications by Representative MacPherson. This bill was heard in law enforcement and criminal justice with the vote of 9 0 2 Representative MacPherson.

  2. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:02:36

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt third substitute.

  3. Speaker (presiding)1:02:42

     Thank you representative. That motion is ordered. Like speak to it?

  4. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:02:45

     Yeah, just very briefly. Um, this is a technical change. Uh, the Attorney General had flagged a particular section needed clarification to ensure that it was in compliance with the state constitution. It doesn't change the policy, it's just a, a wording change to ensure that it's com in compliance.

  5. Speaker (presiding)1:03:07

     Thank you Representative MacPherson. Uh, discussion to the motion to adopt third substitute under Representative McPherson's name on HP 5 39. Being none back to your Representative. MacPherson I'll for go ahead and place the motion. The motion before us is the House adopts third substitute on P 5 39. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes. The bill has been substituted before the body for further consideration Back to Representative MacPherson for summation or for presentation.

  6. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:03:40

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, colleagues, this is a pretty policy dense bill, but it doesn't have a, a ton of, um, new policies. There's a lot of clarifications here. Um, the Attorney General had indicated there is, um, a couple of circumstances where, um, uh, our venue clarification, um, in the statute of, of criminal activity when they are committed in a series that there are occasions when those crimes can be combined, um, when it comes to prosecution. But currently the definition of the locations where the cases can be tried limited to certain areas, including districts, and the code isn't clear whether or not that is a judicial district or some other type of district. This clarifies that so that they can prosecute those cases when they are already combined under rule so they can be prosecuted in the same judicial district. It also includes some language. Um, there are some, um, volunteer organizations in the state of Utah that have had some, um, recent, uh, activities where their volunteers have been targeted for harassment and even assault. And because those individuals aren't residents of the state of Utah, um, they have trouble getting protective orders. This makes a, an adjustment to the workplace protective order to allow it to include volunteers that work for nonprofits. This would affect everything from, uh, volunteers from any nonprofit in the state, including from, uh, LDS church missionaries that are serving on Temple Square. Um, also this makes some adjustments to pretrial pretrial detention. It makes it clear that if you are a repeat domestic violence offender, um, that it makes, uh, requirement changes for pretrial trial detention. It also adds certain privacy offenses, um, under the current DV code for stalking, for example, and a vulnerable adult. These would be elder abuse, um, cases that they would fall under. The list of potential domestic violence cases. Also clarifies some of our code when it comes to sibling on sibling, um, domestic violence, especially in cases when it is an adult sibling and a youth sibling. To clarify when these cases are considered domestic violence and when they're not, there's also an adjustment in code a clarification. Currently, a jail release agreement is available for individuals under domestic violence in the presence of a minor. Typically, the, the victim in these cases can waive their rights and the rights of their children when it comes to a jail release agreement for the offender. So if a, if a, for example, a husband were to beat up a wife in front of the children and the wife would ask the court to waive a jail release agreement both on her behalf and on behalf of her children, that is currently allowed. But the language of the law is unclear. And right now it allows the perpetrator, the husband in this case, to waive the rights of the children, uh, regardless of the victim's, uh, preference. So this clarifies that. Um, and then finally, it adds stalking to the list of crimes for which an officer may, um, issue a jail release agreement under the domestic violence category. So if you are, um, stalking an individual and you've been arrested under domestic violence for stalking, then a jail release agreement can include, for example, that you can't have contact with your, with the victim. That concludes the majority of these policy, actually the entirety of the policy issues that are include in this bill. Again, again, it is fairly policy dense, but most of it is clarification of the code with a couple of additional, uh, changes when it comes to jail release agreements in pretrial defen, uh, detention for repeat domestic violence offenders. And with that, I'm open for any questions.

  7. Speaker (presiding)1:07:44

     Thank you, Representative MacPherson discussion to the bill. Representative Cutler.

  8. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:07:50

     Thank you. Um, would the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative MacPherson, will you yield to a series of questions?

  9. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:07:57

     I Will. Yes. Representative Cutler

  10. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:07:59

      Interested in, uh, how this helps, uh, victims of domestic violence and specifically on line 8 55, uh, where, where it talks, uh, about, uh, contacting a child. I wondered if you could just clarify if, if the child is the victim of deli domestic violence, does this allow the perpetrator to contact them?

  11. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:08:24

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, yeah, this is an additional clarification. Currently, right now, under domestic violence in the presence of a child, it's assumed that the child is the child of the victim or of the perpetrator. But that's not always the case. And there are circumstances when a single, uh, parent, for example, is engaged in sibling on sibling, uh, domestic violence under the current code in front of, for example, their children where, uh, as it stands under the current, uh, code, and it's not the intended effect that those children during their remand to jail, that those children would be put into the state foster care system rather than being allowed to be still be parented by, um, by the, uh, uh, the offender in this case. And that's not the intent of this, it's the intent of when we're talking about the children of, uh, of the, uh, victim when it's in their presence. Um, that that's the intent of ensuring that there is a, uh, restriction from contacting those children not to force those children that weren't otherwise relevant in the case, but under the code. Otherwise, they would be sent into, um, the state system, um, temporarily until the case was uh, finalized.

  12. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:09:49

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  13. Speaker (presiding)1:09:52

      Thank you. Represe m Cutler. Further discussion to the bill. None. Back to Representative MacPherson for summation.

  14. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:10:01

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've worked really hard with the Attorney General with, uh, uh, swap with the defense attorneys. We've, and tried to ensure that, uh, all of the, um, individuals that have an interest in this, including the victim advocates, have had their voices heard. Um, and we currently have, um, uh, essentially a full consensus on this bill. There's a lot of clarification here that's absolutely needed with only a couple of new policy changes, especially when it comes to, um, uh, to volunteers and, and when it comes to, um, protecting volunteers of non-profit organizations, including LDS missionaries at Temple Square. Um, and I would encourage your support on this bill.

  15. Speaker (presiding)1:10:51

      Thank you. Representative MacPherson voting will now be open on third substitute seeing all president and voted voting is now closed. Third substitute HP 5 39 passes this body with 66 yes votes zero, no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consideration. Representative Wilcox.

• Feb 24, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (16 turns)

  1. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:02:36

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt third substitute.

  2. Speaker (presiding)1:02:42

     Thank you representative. That motion is ordered. Like speak to it?

  3. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:02:45

     Yeah, just very briefly. Um, this is a technical change. Uh, the Attorney General had flagged a particular section needed clarification to ensure that it was in compliance with the state constitution. It doesn't change the policy, it's just a, a wording change to ensure that it's com in compliance.

  4. Speaker (presiding)1:03:07

     Thank you Representative MacPherson. Uh, discussion to the motion to adopt third substitute under Representative McPherson's name on HP 5 39. Being none back to your Representative. MacPherson I'll for go ahead and place the motion. The motion before us is the House adopts third substitute on P 5 39. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes. The bill has been substituted before the body for further consideration Back to Representative MacPherson for summation or for presentation.

  5. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:03:40

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, colleagues, this is a pretty policy dense bill, but it doesn't have a, a ton of, um, new policies. There's a lot of clarifications here. Um, the Attorney General had indicated there is, um, a couple of circumstances where, um, uh, our venue clarification, um, in the statute of, of criminal activity when they are committed in a series that there are occasions when those crimes can be combined, um, when it comes to prosecution. But currently the definition of the locations where the cases can be tried limited to certain areas, including districts, and the code isn't clear whether or not that is a judicial district or some other type of district. This clarifies that so that they can prosecute those cases when they are already combined under rule so they can be prosecuted in the same judicial district. It also includes some language. Um, there are some, um, volunteer organizations in the state of Utah that have had some, um, recent, uh, activities where their volunteers have been targeted for harassment and even assault. And because those individuals aren't residents of the state of Utah, um, they have trouble getting protective orders. This makes a, an adjustment to the workplace protective order to allow it to include volunteers that work for nonprofits. This would affect everything from, uh, volunteers from any nonprofit in the state, including from, uh, LDS church missionaries that are serving on Temple Square. Um, also this makes some adjustments to pretrial pretrial detention. It makes it clear that if you are a repeat domestic violence offender, um, that it makes, uh, requirement changes for pretrial trial detention. It also adds certain privacy offenses, um, under the current DV code for stalking, for example, and a vulnerable adult. These would be elder abuse, um, cases that they would fall under. The list of potential domestic violence cases. Also clarifies some of our code when it comes to sibling on sibling, um, domestic violence, especially in cases when it is an adult sibling and a youth sibling. To clarify when these cases are considered domestic violence and when they're not, there's also an adjustment in code a clarification. Currently, a jail release agreement is available for individuals under domestic violence in the presence of a minor. Typically, the, the victim in these cases can waive their rights and the rights of their children when it comes to a jail release agreement for the offender. So if a, if a, for example, a husband were to beat up a wife in front of the children and the wife would ask the court to waive a jail release agreement both on her behalf and on behalf of her children, that is currently allowed. But the language of the law is unclear. And right now it allows the perpetrator, the husband in this case, to waive the rights of the children, uh, regardless of the victim's, uh, preference. So this clarifies that. Um, and then finally, it adds stalking to the list of crimes for which an officer may, um, issue a jail release agreement under the domestic violence category. So if you are, um, stalking an individual and you've been arrested under domestic violence for stalking, then a jail release agreement can include, for example, that you can't have contact with your, with the victim. That concludes the majority of these policy, actually the entirety of the policy issues that are include in this bill. Again, again, it is fairly policy dense, but most of it is clarification of the code with a couple of additional, uh, changes when it comes to jail release agreements in pretrial defen, uh, detention for repeat domestic violence offenders. And with that, I'm open for any questions.

  6. Speaker (presiding)1:07:44

     Thank you, Representative MacPherson discussion to the bill.

  7. Speaker (presiding)1:07:46

     Representative Cutler.

  8. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:07:50

     Thank you. Um, would the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative MacPherson, will you yield to a series of questions?

  9. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:07:57

     I Will. Yes. Representative Cutler

  10. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:07:59

      Interested in, uh, how this helps, uh, victims of domestic violence and specifically on line 8 55, uh, where, where it talks, uh, about, uh, contacting a child. I wondered if you could just clarify if, if the child is the victim of deli domestic violence, does this allow the perpetrator to contact them?

  11. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:08:24

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, yeah, this is an additional clarification. Currently, right now, under domestic violence in the presence of a child, it's assumed that the child is the child of the victim or of the perpetrator. But that's not always the case. And there are circumstances when a single, uh, parent, for example, is engaged in sibling on sibling, uh, domestic violence under the current code in front of, for example, their children where, uh, as it stands under the current, uh, code, and it's not the intended effect that those children during their remand to jail, that those children would be put into the state foster care system rather than being allowed to be still be parented by, um, by the, uh, uh, the offender in this case. And that's not the intent of this, it's the intent of when we're talking about the children of, uh, of the, uh, victim when it's in their presence. Um, that that's the intent of ensuring that there is a, uh, restriction from contacting those children not to force those children that weren't otherwise relevant in the case, but under the code. Otherwise, they would be sent into, um, the state system, um, temporarily until the case was uh, finalized.

  12. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:09:49

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  13. Speaker (presiding)1:09:52

      Thank you. Represe m Cutler. Further discussion to the bill. None. Back to Representative MacPherson for summation.

  14. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:10:01

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've worked really hard with the Attorney General with, uh, uh, swap with the defense attorneys. We've, and tried to ensure that, uh, all of the, um, individuals that have an interest in this, including the victim advocates, have had their voices heard. Um, and we currently have, um, uh, essentially a full consensus on this bill. There's a lot of clarification here that's absolutely needed with only a couple of new policy changes, especially when it comes to, um, uh, to volunteers and, and when it comes to, um, protecting volunteers of non-profit organizations, including LDS missionaries at Temple Square. Um, and I would encourage your support on this bill.

  15. Speaker (presiding)1:10:51

      Thank you. Representative MacPherson voting will now be open on third substitute seeing all president and voted voting is now closed. Third substitute HP 5 39 passes this body with 66 yes votes zero, no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consideration.

  16. Speaker (presiding)1:12:07

      Representative Wilcox.

• Mar 4, 2026 Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (7 turns)

  1. Committee chair (presiding)1:46:04

     Uh, Representative MacPherson house Bill 3 59.

  2. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:46:09

     Public safety modifications. Did you see what Shallenberger did? Yes. Okay. I will try to be even briefer even though this one has a significant number of, uh, pieces. Uh, just say most of it's clarification of existing code.

  3. Unknown speaker1:46:22speaker not certain

     I noticed you had no, no votes in the house.

  4. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:46:24

     That is correct. Okay. And we don't anticipate any real opposition. There's been a couple of pieces added by the Attorney General, um, to clarify jurisdiction as well as, uh, uh, updating, um, uh, domestic. I'm sorry. Yeah. Um, the, uh, okay. If you have questions, let me know. Senator Pitcher.

  5. Committee chair (presiding)1:46:43

     Senator Pitcher?

  6. Sen. Pitcher1:46:46

     I, can I make a motion? Sure. I move that we, we favorably recommend House Bill 5 39. Is that what We're on? It's, um, 5 39.

  7. Committee chair (presiding)1:46:53

     Third sub. Third sub? Yep. Alright. Well, let me just ask, was there anybody here to testify in the bill? Uh, okay. We got a thumbs up from Aaron in the back, so that's a good sign. All right. Um, oh, several thumbs up. Okay. So, uh, we'll close the public hearing and I'll recognize the motion. Uh, any discussion that motion you, you wanna waive? I'll wa you guys will waive. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Chair rules. That House Bill third substitute house Bill 5 39 passes with a vote. I think of seven to zero. Seven to zero. Alright.

• Mar 6, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Presiding officer3:21:22

     and then I'll speak to the full substance of the bill after the sub has been adopted and it is a friendly sub. Okay. We have substitute four online. That's correct. Does not have a fiscal note to it. So, discussion to the motion to substitute Senator Pitcher.

  2. Sen. Stephanie Pitcher3:21:40

     Thank you Mr. President Pro Tem. Um, this substitute incorporates some language, uh, requested by swap regarding the filing of domestic violence cases. It also ensures that when there's a domestic violence allegation, uh, that it's sent to an investigator as soon as possible. Uh, this is language that previously existed in Senate Bill 3 0 2. It's just not going to make it over in time. Um, but it, uh, did not have a fiscal note. That helps.

  3. Presiding officer3:22:05

     Thank you for that. Senator Brammer to, to the motion to

  4. Sen. Brady Brammer3:22:08

     Sub. Uh, it's a, it's a friendly substitute and uh, I support it.

  5. Presiding officer3:22:13

     Okay. Further discussion. The motion to substitute Seeing none. All in favor of deleting and title and body. Third substitute house bill 5 39 with four substitute house bill 5 39. Say aye. Aye. Any post? I'll rule that passes now, Now, because this does not yet have the fiscal note caught up to the sub. I'm gonna circle this and let the fiscal note hit while over the dinner break and then we'll come back to it right after. Sounds great. Alright, So I'll do a motion to circle All in favor of the motion to circle, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? I'll rule that passes That bill is circled further, uh, motions to Unci.

• Mar 6, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (8 turns)

  1. Sen. Brady Brammer29:50

     So here's a few of the things that it does. First, it, it creates a rebuttable presumption, uh, pretrial detention for repeat domestic violence offenders. Additionally, it adds a pri, it adds privacy offenses and vulnerable adult abuse to a list of domestic, domestic violence offenses. Additionally, it clarifies that an adult sibling committed committing in a domestic violence offense against a minor sibling can be domestic violence. Additionally, it it clarifies several of the issues around, um, around jail release agreements. It the attorney general's office also asked for some clarification on venue for crimes that span multiple jurisdictions. And so it performs that it also expands who may seek a workplace protective order to include a volunteer for a nonprofit organization. And it clarifies the word, uh, that the word district means judicial district. And so those are the primary highlights of the bill and I'm open to any questions on it?

  2. Senate presiding officer30:52

     Thank you. Senator Brammer. Seeing no questions going to you for a motion, I will call the question. Thank you. Thank you. And the question is, shall force substitute house bill 5 39 Under suspension of the rules pass Roque vote.

  3. Senate clerk (roll call)31:07

     Senator Baldy Lewin Bramer Aye. Bus Comore es Esia Fillmore Grover Harper Kinins Ipson Johnson. Juab Juab McKay Mikel Aye. Milner Aye. Musman Owens pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vicars Plum No. Weiler Wilson Winterton. President Adams

  4. Sen. J. Stuart Adams32:04

     Aye.

  5. Senate presiding officer32:06

     Four. Substitute house Bill 5 39. Having received 19 yay votes six nay votes, four being absent, passes his body and will be returned to the house for further consideration. Anybody else want to encircle? Senator Harper

  6. Sen. Wayne A. Harper32:27

     Mo. Motion to circle house bill three 19.

  7. Senate presiding officer32:31speaker not certain

     We have a motion. Unci, second substitute house bill. Oh, excuse me. Let me get the right number. Motion to circle second substitute house bill 3 19 19. Is that correct? Yes. Electronic records amendment? Yes. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will the motion passes? Bill on circle. Senator Harper.

  8. Sen. Wayne A. Harper32:49

     Thank you. Uh, there's more

• Mar 6, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (3 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)2:08:35

     For substitute house Bill 5 39 Public safety modifications by Representative MacPherson. Representative MacPherson. Motion to Concur. Thank you, representative. That motion is

  2. Rep. Matt MacPherson2:08:47

     ordered. Would like to speak to it Just briefly. We, uh, the Senate added an amendment that, uh, uh, clarified the timeline when it comes to, uh, law enforcement, uh, submitting domestic violence, uh, cases to prosecutors.

  3. Speaker (presiding)2:09:02

     Thank you, representative. Uh, we'll go ahead and, uh, discussion to that motion to concur with as Senate amendments. See none will place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes, uh, voting will now be open for final passage on four substitute HB 5 39 representatives. If you get to where you wanna speak to a bill at this point, make sure you press your light early. Please. Seeing all President having voted voting is now closed for substitute. HB 5 39 passes this body with 53 yes votes, 10 no votes and will be sent to the Senate for the signature of the President. Madam Meeting Clerk