The civic record
Read. Follow. Verify.Missouri House Bill 2339 expands protective order definitions to include coercive control and electronic harassment
Last action · May 15, 2026: Referred: Emerging Issues(H)Sponsor: Raychel Proudie
Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.
What This Bill Would Do
House Bill 2339 updates Missouri statutes governing protective orders by establishing explicit legal definitions for "," "disturbing the peace," and "abusing a pet." The measure specifies that electronic communications and third-party actions can constitute disturbing the peace and clarifies jurisdictional requirements when a petitioner is present in the state.
The measure changes what specific behaviors victims can cite in legal petitions for protective orders, expanding judicial authority to address non-physical forms of intimidation such as isolation, financial control, and digital surveillance.
- House Bill 2339 was introduced during the 2026 Regular Session of the Missouri General Assembly by Representative Raychel Proudie. context
Who It Would Affect
Groups the bill's text would affect if enacted, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.
Petitioners seeking protective orders
Petitioners are permitted to cite non-physical behaviors such as coercive control and electronic harassment as grounds for obtaining a protective order.
Respondents in protective order proceedings
Respondents face legal restraint under expanded statutory definitions that include digital communication, pet abuse, and coercive control.
Circuit or associate circuit judges and family court commissioners
Judicial officers must apply the newly established statutory definitions when evaluating petitions and issuing orders of protection.
Key Facts
You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.
Frequently Asked Questions
What new behaviors are recognized as abuse under this bill?
How does the bill address digital harassment or electronic communication?
What is required for a Missouri court to have jurisdiction over a protective order under the bill?
What else do you want to know?
News Coverage
Follow the record
Votes, people, money & the original sourceWhere This Stands
Currently in committee. The next step in the legislative lifecycle is Floor Vote.
Procedural history
4 actions- May 15, 2026HouseCommitteeReferred: Emerging Issues(H)
- Jan 8, 2026HouseFloorRead Second Time (H)
- Jan 7, 2026HouseIntroducedRead First Time (H)
- Dec 10, 2025HouseIntroducedPrefiled (H)
Version history
Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.
View official text →Lobbying Activity
No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.
Full breakdown
Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.
Sponsors
Discoveries
Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.
Expansion of Protective Order Scope
The bill broadens the legal framework for protective orders beyond physical violence and stalking by codifying specific non-physical harms such as coercive control and electronic disturbance.
Connected Entities
Sources
house.mo.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance65How much this matters to a regular citizen
- Controversy25Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment5Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz20Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools