CaliforniaJudges may consider military protection orders against respondents for similar conduct toward people proposed court orders would protect
The signed law would let judges consider either side’s evidence of a military protection order against the respondent for similar conduct toward someone the proposed order would protect.
What it does
Judges may consider either side’s evidence of a military protection order against the respondent for the same or similar conduct toward someone the proposed court order would protect.
At a domestic violence scene, officers must immediately check a national database for a reported military protection order if the protected person cannot show an official copy.
Officers must alert the agency that registered a military protection order in the national database when someone named in it and involved in a domestic violence incident violates a covered court protection order.
Agencies that seek or enforce domestic violence protection orders may make written plans with military representatives for cases involving service members assigned to installations at least partly in their area.
Argument forConsidering a military protection order against a respondent for similar conduct could help a judge assess a request involving someone the proposed order would protect.
Argument againstChecking a reported military protection order could take officers’ time at a domestic violence scene when the protected person lacks an official copy.
More detail
Judges may consider evidence of a military protection order when deciding whether to issue a domestic violence protection order. A U.S. armed forces or National Guard commander must have issued the military order against the respondent, who must be under that commander’s command. Either side may submit the evidence. The military order must concern the same or similar conduct against someone the proposed court order would protect.
Officers must check a national database to verify a reported military protection order. This applies when officers at a domestic violence scene learn of a military protection order, including one against a person taken into custody. The protected person cannot show an official copy of the order. Officers must check immediately after receiving the information at the scene.
Officers must alert the agency that registered a military protection order about a possible violation of that order. The person must be named in the military order and involved in the domestic violence incident. The military order must be registered in the national database. The person must violate a court protection order issued under one of the two Family Code parts named in the law.
Law enforcement agencies may make written plans with military representatives for handling domestic violence cases. This applies to agencies that seek or enforce protection orders and to cases involving service members assigned to units on installations at least partly within those agencies’ areas. Plans may cover reporting possible order violations, investigating cases, and sharing private information as state and federal law allow.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Passed Assembly
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Sep 30Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 844, Statutes of 2026.Latest
- Sep 30Approved by the Governor Gavin Newsom.Became Law
- Sep 8Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.To Governor
- Aug 30Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.Major
- Vote recorded Unfinished Business SB99 Blakespear et al. Concurrence. Result: pass.Upper
- Aug 30Ordered to special consent calendar.
- Aug 27In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
- Vote recorded SB 99 Blakespear Senate Third Reading By Stefani. Result: pass.Lower
- Aug 27Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 6703.) Ordered to the Senate.Passed Assembly
- Aug 20Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Aug 20Read third time and amended.Major
- Aug 6Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Aug 5From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (August 5).Minor
- Vote recorded Do pass. Result: pass.Lower
- Jun 24From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (June 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.Minor
- Jun 23
- Vote recorded Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]. Result: pass.Lower
- Jun 9From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (June 9). Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.Minor
- Vote recorded Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Public Safety]. Result: pass.Lower
- Jun 9Coauthors revised.
- Jun 4From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.Major
- May 4Referred to Coms. on JUD. and PUB. S.Minor
- Jan 27In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.Minor
- Vote recorded 3rd Reading. Result: pass.Upper
- Jan 27Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 3308.) Ordered to the Assembly.Passed Senate
- Jan 26Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Jan 22Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.Major
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended. Result: pass.Upper
- Jan 22From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3268.) (January 22).Major
- Jan 21Set for hearing January 22.
- Jan 20January 20 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
- Vote recorded Placed on suspense file. Result: pass.Upper
- Jan 15Set for hearing January 20.
- Jan 15Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.Major
- Jan 14From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0. Page 3213.) (January 13).Major
- Jan 13From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 3214.) (January 13). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.Minor
- Vote recorded Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]. Result: pass.Upper
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]. Result: pass.Upper
- Jan 7Set for hearing January 13 in JUD. pending receipt.
- Jan 6Set for hearing January 13.
- Jan 5Re-referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and JUD.Minor
- Jan 5Re-referred to Com. on RLS.Minor
- Jan 5Withdrawn from committee.Major
- Jan 5From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.Major
- 2025
- May 23May 23 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
- May 16Set for hearing May 23.
- May 12May 12 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
- Vote recorded Placed on suspense file. Result: pass.Upper
- May 2Set for hearing May 12.
- Apr 29From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 918.) (April 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.Minor
- Apr 28
- Vote recorded Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]. Result: pass.Upper
- Apr 25Set for hearing April 28.
- Apr 23Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on M. & V.A.Major
- Apr 22From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on M. & V.A. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 811.) (April 21).Major
- Apr 21
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Military and Veterans Affairs]. Result: pass.Upper
- Apr 4Set for hearing April 21.
- Apr 1From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HUMAN S.Major
- Apr 1April 7 hearing postponed by committee.
- Mar 13Set for hearing April 7.
- Feb 5Referred to Coms. on HUMAN S. and M. & V.A.Minor
- Jan 24From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 23.
- Jan 23Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.Introduced
Public SafetyCriminal Justice