PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · May 19, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
Probation Officer Protection Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the federal criminal code to authorize a probation officer to arrest a person (i.e., a person other than the probationer) without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe the person forcibly assaulted or obstructed a probation officer engaged in the performance of official duties.
People & committees
Rep. Reichert, David G. [R-WA-8] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 229 - 177 (Roll no. 268).
House roll call 268 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 229 - 177 (Roll no. 268).
House roll call 268 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4373-4374)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of the debate on the Jackson Lee amendment, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Jackson Lee requested the Yeas and Nays and pursuant to the order of the House of May 19, 2017 the Chair postponed further proceedings on the adoption of the Jackson Lee amendment until a time to be announced.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 324, the House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Jackson Lee amendment No. 1.
ORDER OF PROCEDURE - Mr. Goodlatte asked unanimous consent that the question of adopting the amendment to H.R. 1039 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule 20. Agreed to without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 1039.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1039. Rule provides for consideration of the bill under a structured rule with one hour of general debate equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The resolution also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 324. (consideration: CR H4362-4373; text of measure as reported in House: CR H4362)
Rule H. Res. 324 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 324 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1039. Rule provides for consideration of the bill under a structured rule with one hour of general debate equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The resolution also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 66.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 115-112.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 115-112.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 7.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1039 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1039 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1039 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1039 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.