HB 4045
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
HB 4045 mandates that communications providers respond to search warrants related to domestic violence and stalking investigations within accelerated deadlines—72 hours for social media platforms and five business days for other providers—overriding existing response time statutes. The measure requires applicants to flag these warrants with specific language indicating an immediate response is required and establishes procedural requirements for the warrant application. It takes effect on passage but becomes operative on May 1, 2026, and is named "Kristil's Law."
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
The measure is named after Kristil Krug, who was killed in December 2023 after being stalked. Official staff analysis indicates that search warrants issued to communications providers to collect data on the suspect's messages did not receive responses until after her murder, and the delayed response hindered timely intervention. The measure addresses this by mandating faster response times for such investigations.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The legislature likely determined that standard provider response timelines are insufficient for time-sensitive domestic violence and stalking cases where evidence of imminent harm may be ephemeral or critical to preventing injury. This is inferred from the differentiation between social media platforms (72 hours) and other providers (five business days), suggesting a hypothesis that real-time or near-real-time data on social platforms is more immediately relevant to life-safety threats than bulk records held by other telecommunications entities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Must implement processes to identify warrants flagged under this law and respond within the mandated 72-hour or five-business-day windows. They are subject to a new statutory duty that overrides ORS 136.583(3) and must comply with strict deadlines regardless of existing response protocols.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Must modify warrant applications to include specific statements identifying the warrant as subject to this section and must use the phrase "Immediate Response Required" in both the title and body of the proposed warrant. Failure to include these specifications may result in non-compliance with the procedural requirements.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Receives warrants with new formatting requirements; fiscal impact is minimal. The department may take preparatory actions before the operative date to enable exercise of duties.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Indirectly affected by the accelerated availability of digital evidence, which may expedite protective orders or arrests in qualifying cases where provider data is critical to safety.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Providers must update internal workflows to recognize "Immediate Response Required" flags and prioritize these warrants, potentially requiring staff reassignment or automated routing for social media platforms.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
The override of ORS 136.583(3) eliminates any existing statutory grace periods or standard response windows for qualifying warrants, creating a strict compliance deadline.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Fiscal impact is minimal; the Legislative Revenue Office and Legislative Fiscal Office report no revenue impact and minimal fiscal impact on state expenditures.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; IS_Impact HB 4045 2
Operative date of May 1, 2026 allows providers and the Judicial Department time to prepare systems and procedures.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Victim of stalking
A victim of stalking receives credible threats via a social media platform; law enforcement obtains a warrant flagged under this section, and the provider responds within 72 hours with real-time location or message data that allows police to intervene and prevent an assault before it occurs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Communications provider
A communications provider faces a technically complex request for historical data from a non-social-media entity (e.g., a cloud storage service) that cannot be fulfilled within five business days due to system architecture limitations, creating a statutory violation despite good faith efforts, or the provider misclassifies a warrant as falling under this section and prematurely discloses data in a non-qualifying investigation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
The distinction between the statutory duty and potential abuse relies on the accuracy of applicant certifications and the absence of enforcement provisions in the text.
Sources · Enrolled
Accelerating access to digital evidence in domestic violence and stalking cases to potentially save lives imposes strict, accelerated response deadlines on communications providers that require operational changes and override existing statutory response windows.
Faster evidence collection may prevent harm to victims of stalking and domestic violence by providing critical data sooner.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Providers face new compliance burdens and potential liability for missing tight deadlines; the override of ORS 136.583(3) removes flexibility in warrant execution timelines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
The enrolled version retains the core requirements of the House Amendments, including the accelerated response times (72 hours for social media platforms, five business days for other providers) and the procedural mandate that applicants specify warrant requirements. The primary change noted in the staff analysis is that the amendment shifted the responsibility to specify these requirements from the judge to the applicant in the application and proposed warrant. The enrolled text reflects this shift, requiring the applicant to include the necessary statements and flags.
Responsibility for specifying warrant requirements shifted from the judge to the applicant.
High. This ensures the applicant certifies the applicability of the accelerated response times and includes the "Immediate Response Required" flag, reducing judicial burden and clarifying applicant duties.
Sources · Staff Measure Summary A
Tradeoff: Shifting the specification duty to applicants increases applicant accountability for warrant accuracy and flagging but may require additional training or oversight to ensure proper certification of domestic violence/stalking applicability.
high confidence. The analysis is based on the enrolled bill text, official staff summaries, and fiscal/revenue impact statements. The rationale is grounded in the documented incident referenced in the staff summary. Inferences are bounded by the text's specific provisions.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
The amendment shifts the responsibility for specifying expedited warrant timelines from judges to law enforcement applicants, mandates that warrants include explicit urgency language, and legally requires communications providers to respond within 72 hours if they are social media platforms or five business days otherwise, overriding standard service rules for domestic violence and stalking investigations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment was likely proposed to reduce judicial drafting burdens and ensure law enforcement explicitly acknowledges expedited timelines before judicial review, thereby streamlining the warrant issuance process for time-sensitive investigations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Must now draft and submit warrant applications containing mandatory urgency language and explicit acknowledgment of expedited response deadlines, increasing pre-filing administrative steps.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Retain authority to issue warrants based on probable cause but are relieved of the duty to manually insert urgency specifications into warrant documents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Legally bound to comply with accelerated response deadlines that override default service rules, with timelines differentiated by whether the provider meets a federally defined social media platform classification.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Indirectly affected by potentially faster access to digital evidence, though existing constitutional and statutory warrant standards continue to govern privacy protections and probable cause requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Applicants must update warrant templates to include mandatory urgency declarations. Providers must adjust internal compliance workflows to prioritize and process these warrants within strict windows.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Official fiscal analysis indicates minimal state or local government expenditure impact, but providers may face operational costs for expedited processing. Enforcement relies on judicial oversight of warrant execution rather than statutory penalties for noncompliance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Accelerated evidence collection could improve victim safety and preserve volatile digital data, but rushed compliance increases the risk of technical errors or inadvertent disclosure of protected communications.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Victims/suspects in domestic violence or stalking cases
A stalking suspect actively deletes cloud-stored location history; the expedited 72-hour response requirement forces a social media platform to preserve and deliver critical geolocation logs before destruction, directly preventing a homicide.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Communications providers
A communications provider misclassifies its service under the federal social media platform definition, triggering a 72-hour deadline for non-real-time archival data. The rushed compliance process causes system overload, delays unrelated lawful requests, and results in the wrongful disclosure of privileged attorney-client communications.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits expedited processing only for warrants meeting specific jurisdictional and subject-matter thresholds. Potential abuse arises from duty creep or misclassification rather than explicit statutory authorization.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Accelerating digital evidence collection for domestic violence and stalking investigations trades off against increased administrative burden on law enforcement applicants and potential operational strain or privacy risks for communications providers. Upsides include faster victim protection and evidence preservation. Downsides include risk of timeline misuse, provider compliance costs, and reduced judicial gatekeeping in warrant drafting.
Faster access to digital evidence may prevent further harm to victims of stalking or domestic violence.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Streamlined warrant drafting reduces judicial administrative burden and clarifies applicant responsibilities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Providers may incur operational costs and technical strain to meet accelerated deadlines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Routine use of urgency language could dilute judicial oversight and expand expedited processing beyond intended emergency contexts.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
high confidence. The amendment text is explicit regarding procedural shifts, response timelines, and jurisdictional scope. Official fiscal and staff analyses confirm minimal revenue impact and clarify the amendment's operational effect. No legislative intent or litigation history was supplied to support additional claims.
If adopted, the amendment shifts the authority to mandate expedited search warrant responses from judges to law enforcement applicants, requiring prosecutors to explicitly request expedited timelines in their applications and proposed warrants. It would legally compel social media platforms to respond within 72 hours and other communications providers within five business days for domestic violence or stalking investigations, overriding existing default response periods under ORS 136.583.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment's structural shift from a judicial mandate to an applicant-driven request suggests a legislative intent to lower procedural barriers for expedited responses, ensuring law enforcement proactively triggers the timeline rather than relying on judges to include it.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Must now explicitly draft expedited response requests into warrant applications and proposed warrants, bearing direct responsibility for meeting the 72-hour or five-business-day window rather than relying on judicial orders.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Legally bound to respond within strict new deadlines for qualifying warrants, overriding standard ORS 136.583 timelines, with compliance workflows needing adjustment to prioritize these requests.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Lose the direct statutory mandate to order expedited responses in these specific warrants; their role shifts to reviewing applicant requests and issuing warrants that incorporate them.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Potentially faster access to digital evidence critical to investigations, though outcomes depend entirely on law enforcement's proactive use of the new provision.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Prosecutors must modify warrant drafting templates to include specific statutory language and ensure proper service triggers the countdown.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Providers must adjust compliance operations to prioritize these warrants within strict deadlines, though official fiscal analysis indicates no direct revenue impact.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Enforcement relies on provider compliance; failure to meet deadlines could trigger legal challenges, though the amendment does not specify penalties or oversight mechanisms.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Victims of active stalking
In an ongoing stalking case where a perpetrator is tracking a victim via a social media application, the 72-hour mandate forces the platform to hand over real-time location and communication data before the perpetrator can act, directly preventing imminent harm.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Communications providers and law enforcement
Law enforcement routinely requests expedited timelines for low-priority or non-qualifying cases due to ambiguous statutory boundaries, overwhelming provider compliance teams and causing systemic delays that actually slow responses to genuine emergencies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
inference
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Accelerating digital evidence collection in time-sensitive stalking and domestic violence cases improves investigative responsiveness but shifts the gatekeeping function from judges to law enforcement applicants, potentially increasing the volume of expedited requests without explicit statutory penalties for misuse.
Faster access to critical digital evidence for victims in active danger.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Clearer, applicant-driven procedural triggers reduce ambiguity about when expedited timelines apply.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Reduced judicial oversight may allow non-qualifying warrants to trigger expedited processing.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Provider compliance burdens could increase if timelines are overused or misapplied, with no statutory remedies for non-compliance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit text of the proposed amendment, official staff summaries, and revenue/fiscal statements. Inferences are clearly labeled and bounded to statutory mechanics.
36 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Follow the official text for HB 4045 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals.
Selected document summary
Substantial replacement
What the document says to change
delete lines 1 through 8 and insert:
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Representative Kevin Mannix, Senator Floyd Prozanski
Regular sponsors: Representative Rick Lewis, Representative Tom Andersen, Representative Thuy Tran, Representative Annessa Hartman, Representative E. Werner Reschke, Representative Anna Scharf, Representative Lesly Muñoz, Representative Zach Hudson, Representative Sue Rieke Smith, Representative April Dobson, Representative Dacia Grayber, Representative Jules Walters, Representative Emerson Levy, Representative Jason Kropf, Representative Shelly Boshart Davis, Representative Cyrus Javadi, Senator David Brock Smith, Senator Kim Thatcher, Senator Courtney Neron Misslin, Senator James Manning Jr.
House carrier
Representative Kevin Mannix
Special Orders Of Business · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Third Reading Of House Measures · Version A
A carrier presents the measure or report but is not necessarily its sponsor or author.
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
36 events
Full timeline
36 entries shown.
Chapter 34, (2026 Laws): Effective date March 31, 2026.
Governor signed.
President signed.
Speaker signed.
Third reading. Carried by Prozanski. Passed.
Ayes, 28; Excused, 2--Drazan, Girod.
Second reading.
Recommendation: Do pass the A-Eng. bill.
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out · Agenda item 2 · Room HR C · CARRIED OVER FROM THE 02-23-26 MEETING: Requires a social media platform to respond to a search warrant within 72 hours of service, and all other communications providers to respond within five business days of service, when the warrant pertains to an investigation of stalking or a crime constituting domestic violence.
IS_Impact HB 4045 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Public Hearing and Work Session held.
Public Hearing and Work Session
Heard · Agenda item 2 · Room HR C · Requires a social media platform to respond to a search warrant within 72 hours of service, and all other communications providers to respond within five business days of service, when the warrant pertains to an investigation of stalking or a crime constituting domestic violence.
IS_Impact HB 4045 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Referred to Judiciary.
First reading. Referred to President's desk.
Third reading as Special Order of Business. Carried by Mannix. Passed.
Ayes, 55; Excused, 2--Lewis, Valderrama; Excused for Business of the House, 3--Helfrich, Levy B, McIntire.
Rules suspended. Made a Special Order of Business immediately.
Second reading.
House Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be printed A-Engrossed.
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 7 · Room HR B · Requires a communications provider to respond to a search warrant within 72 hours of service when the warrant pertains to an investigation of stalking or a crime constituting domestic violence.
IS_Impact HB 4045 2
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -2 adopted
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 1 · Room HR B · Requires a communications provider to respond to a search warrant within 72 hours of service when the warrant pertains to an investigation of stalking or a crime constituting domestic violence.
Amendment -2 proposed
Referred to Judiciary.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
d calculating their retirement benefit with a higher statutory factor. In 2024, House Bill 4045, in part, added forensic scientists and evidence technicians employed by the De
“Chapter 34, (2026 Laws): Effective date March 31, 2026.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.