If you or someone you care about is dealing with domestic violence in Florida, SB 32 might soon shake up how quickly protection is available. This bill would let a victim ask the court for an injunction after just one serious act—like a death threat or an injury causing real harm—instead of having to show a whole series of bad incidents. That means legal safeguards could kick in much sooner.
Let’s break down what SB 32 would actually change for protection orders, why the definitions of “serious violence” and “serious bodily injury” are a big deal, and what all this means for who qualifies and how the rules get enforced. If you’re in Broward County and need help figuring out your options, reaching out to a Florida domestic abuse attorney might be a good idea.
SB 32 and the Changing Standards for Protection Orders
SB 32 lowers the bar for getting court-ordered protection and opens the door for more people to qualify. It tweaks some key definitions and adds new procedures aimed at making relief faster and easier, including fee waivers and better notification systems (when funding allows, of course).
Key Provisions of SB 32
Under SB 32, there’s a new legal path for injunctions if a known person commits “serious violence,” and it also tightens or rewrites what counts as “serious bodily injury.”
Some highlights: the bill bans clerk filing fees for these petitions and tells court clerks to set up automated notification systems for service and enforcement events—again, if there’s money for it.
It also spells out what happens with firearms after a final protective judgment, plus lays out the timelines and proof required from petitioners. Senator Barbara Sharief, a Democrat from Broward County, is the main sponsor, with a list of co-sponsors on the Senate file.
From Repeat Violence to Repeat or Serious Violence
Right now, Florida law usually requires proof of repeated acts for most protection orders. SB 32 would flip that by specifically allowing injunctions after one incident, as long as it meets the “serious violence by a known person” standard in the bill.
That’s a big deal. It means someone could ask for court protection after a single severe event, without having to show a whole pattern. So, survivors of sexual violence, a bad assault, or other major harm could qualify more easily under the new language.
Background and Legislative Support
Sen. Barbara Sharief brought SB 32 back for the 2026 session after committee work in late 2025, and it’s been moving through the Criminal Justice and appropriations panels. The bill’s got co-introducers and picked up a committee substitute in November 2025 before heading to more committees.
Supporters say it’ll let people get protection faster. Some Broward County officials, including law enforcement, have spoken out about the need for stronger safeguards. Other bills—like HB 285 and SB 308—deal with related stuff, such as firearm surrender and enforcement, so it’s kind of a legislative package deal.
Enforcement and Legal Implications
SB 32 would mean some real changes for clerks and law enforcement, like rolling out automated notifications to let petitioners know about service and court dates. But, of course, that depends on funding and teamwork with the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers.
On the legal side, courts will be figuring out new questions: what exactly counts as “serious violence”? How do you balance urgent relief with due process? And what’s the right way to handle firearm surrender? Cases involving Broward County officials—think Harold Pryor or Gregory Tony—might show where enforcement gets tricky, especially when agencies have to coordinate on service and custody issues.
Implications for Victims: Expanded Eligibility and Protections
Victims would have clearer, faster ways to get emergency and long-term court help, with more people covered and some new tech tools that courts could use to cut down on immediate threats. Here’s how eligibility works, what kinds of orders exist, how to get them, and where electronic measures might come in.
Eligibility for Injunctions After One Serious Incident
With these proposed changes, someone in Florida could ask for an injunction after just one violent or clearly threatening event, instead of needing a pattern. Qualifying acts? Things like causing bodily harm, making a credible threat with a deadly weapon, sexual battery, stalking with clear intent to harm, and other crimes that put someone in immediate danger.
It’s not just about intimate partners, either. Family, people living together, certain dating partners—all still covered, and SB 32 might also add employees, caregivers, or others with a specific relationship to the accused. Courts will be looking at stuff like medical records, police reports, photos, witness statements, and even 911 calls to decide if the single incident hits the threshold for emergency relief.
Judges can issue temporary orders ex parte if there’s a real risk of imminent harm. Petitioners should bring whatever documentation they can about the incident’s seriousness and any ongoing threat. Lawyers and advocates often help with the paperwork and make sure there’s enough proof to get a temporary injunction before a full hearing.
Types of Injunctions for Protection
Florida already has emergency (short-term) orders and longer-term ones after a full hearing. Emergency orders (temporary injunctions) give immediate help—usually things like making someone leave a shared home, no-contact rules, and sometimes giving up firearms—until there’s a full hearing.
After that hearing, a final injunction can last up to the legal max and might include stuff like stay-away distances, no communication, changes to child custody or visitation, and required counseling. SB 32 could expand relief to include things like referrals for compensation or more access to shelters via victim services.
There are also risk protection orders for people who are dangerous because they have weapons. These focus on taking away firearms and have their own proof standards based on imminent risk. Victims can actually go after more than one kind of court protection if the facts support it—it’s not either/or.
Process for Obtaining Protection Orders
The process starts when the petitioner files a sworn petition in circuit court describing what happened and what kind of relief they want. Clerks or victim advocates can help with the paperwork and offer info about shelters, legal help, and keeping evidence safe. If there’s immediate danger, the petitioner can ask for an ex parte temporary injunction, and the judge will look at the affidavit and evidence without waiting for the other side.
The court then schedules a full hearing within a set timeframe. At that hearing, both sides can present testimony, documents, and witnesses. The judge weighs who’s credible, what the evidence shows, and how serious the current danger is before deciding on a final injunction. Petitioners can ask law enforcement to serve the order and can use it to request that weapons be taken or other safety steps.
If relief is denied, there might be options to appeal or refile, depending on what happened. Victims should keep documenting threats and incidents, since new or worse conduct after a denial can be the basis for a fresh petition under the one-incident rule if the law allows it.
Restraining Orders, Risk Protection Orders, and Electronic Tracking Devices
Restraining orders and injunctions for protection usually come with no-contact rules and limits on property or residence access. The whole point is to keep the respondent away—physically and legally—and law enforcement is typically tasked with making sure those boundaries aren’t crossed. If someone violates one of these orders, it’s actually a crime on its own, which can lead to arrest or even more restrictions. It’s pretty serious stuff.
Risk protection orders are a bit more focused—they’re aimed at people who, according to evidence, might be a risk when it comes to firearms. These orders force the person to temporarily hand over any guns and block them from buying more for as long as the order stands. Courts can move pretty quickly on these if there’s a good reason to think someone poses an immediate threat. Honestly, it’s all about trying to prevent tragedy before it happens.
As for electronic tracking devices, they’re not used lightly. Sometimes courts allow them—say, GPS ankle monitors—to help enforce no-contact or stay-away orders, like making sure someone keeps their distance from a victim’s home or work. But it’s a tricky balance: safety versus privacy. Judges have to see real proof that regular enforcement just isn’t enough and that tracking will actually cut down the immediate risk. If a device gets approved, the order should spell out how long it’ll be used, who can see the tracking data, and exactly how and when the device comes off. Civil liberties matter, even in tough situations like these.
