According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 368 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill expands the definition of prohibited conduct under existing protective orders and bail conditions to include the unauthorized remote control of electronic devices affecting a protected person’s residence, vehicle, or property. While this expansion strengthens victim protections, it does not introduce new infrastructure requirements, agency responsibilities, or significant costs for enforcement at the state level.

Similarly, local governments are not anticipated to face significant fiscal burdens as a result of the bill. Although local entities such as law enforcement agencies, district attorneys, and county jails may need to consider the expanded scope of prohibited behaviors during enforcement or prosecution, these changes are considered marginal. The bill operates within the existing legal and procedural frameworks for protective orders and criminal bonds, suggesting minimal adjustments to current practices.

Overall, HB 368 represents a policy adjustment rather than a resource-intensive initiative. Its implementation relies on judicial discretion and enforcement mechanisms that are already in place, resulting in limited new demands on state or local budgets.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 368 based on its clear alignment with core liberty principles and its thoughtful response to modern threats facing victims of family violence and harassment. This bill addresses a growing area of concern—technology-enabled abuse—by extending existing legal protections to include the remote manipulation of electronic devices. These devices, such as smart thermostats, security systems, and connected appliances, can be exploited by abusers to harass, intimidate, or exert control over victims from a distance. By amending various statutes in the Code of Criminal Procedure, Family Code, and Penal Code, HB 368 closes a critical legal gap and helps bring Texas law up to speed with contemporary threats to safety and autonomy.

From a liberty-focused standpoint, HB 368 reinforces individual liberty and private property rights by ensuring that victims maintain control over their personal environments, free from technological intrusion. It strengthens personal responsibility by clarifying that remote harassment or abuse is not beyond the reach of legal accountability. At the same time, the bill avoids expanding government bureaucracy or imposing burdensome regulations, respecting the principle of limited government. It simply updates the scope of conduct that courts and law enforcement can consider when issuing and enforcing protective orders, emergency protections, or bail conditions.

The fiscal analysis further supports a positive recommendation. The Legislative Budget Board determined that HB 368 would not result in significant costs to the state or local governments. It uses existing legal structures and enforcement pathways, meaning implementation would not require new funding or administrative bodies. Finally, the bill analysis notes that the legislation does not create new criminal offenses or penalties but rather updates the types of conduct that can trigger existing provisions in protective orders and criminal enforcement, ensuring proportionality and practicality in its application.

In summary, HB 368 offers a well-calibrated, forward-looking enhancement to public safety tools without overreaching, infringing on rights, or creating fiscal burdens.

• Individual Liberty: The bill strengthens individual liberty by protecting victims of domestic violence, stalking, and similar offenses from digital harassment and coercive control. In the modern age, abusers can use smart home devices, vehicle systems, or other remote-controlled technologies to violate a victim’s autonomy and sense of safety, often without being physically present. This bill explicitly prohibits such behavior as part of protective orders and bond conditions, restoring to victims their personal space, security, and freedom to live without digital intrusion. It ensures that liberty is not compromised by the misuse of technology.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes personal responsibility by holding offenders accountable for indirect, non-physical forms of abuse. By classifying the unauthorized remote control of devices as a violation of court orders or as harassment under the Penal Code, the bill ensures that individuals cannot evade accountability simply because their actions are technological rather than physical. It sends a clear message that abuse, regardless of the medium, carries consequences, and offenders are responsible for respecting both legal boundaries and personal dignity.
• Free Enterprise: The bill has a largely neutral effect on free enterprise. It does not regulate technology companies or place restrictions on product development or marketing. Indirectly, it may encourage companies to enhance user privacy features, particularly for domestic violence survivors, but it does so through legal consequences on abusers, not through business mandates or economic controls.
• Private Property Rights: The bill affirms the principle that individuals have the right to control their own property, including the digital and electronic systems within their homes and vehicles. Remote interference by another party without consent, even by a former partner, represents a clear violation of those rights. The bill safeguards this property control by criminalizing such unauthorized digital access when it is part of a pattern of abuse or harassment, aligning with the constitutional understanding of property as a protected liberty interest.
• Limited Government: Rather than creating new government programs or regulatory bodies, the bill operates through existing legal frameworks for protective orders and bail conditions. This makes the bill a model of limited government action: narrowly tailored, non-invasive, and directed only at those under court supervision or judicial scrutiny. It empowers courts to respond to new forms of abuse without expanding the scope or size of government beyond its proper role of protecting rights.