Protective Order Violation Prosecutions
🔒 What Is a Protective Order Violation?
A protective order (also known as a restraining order, order of protection, or no-contact order) is a court-issued directive intended to protect a person from abuse, harassment, threats, or contact from another individual—often in domestic violence, stalking, or harassment situations.
A violation occurs when the person restrained by the order willfully disobeys any condition of the court order, such as:
Approaching or contacting the protected party
Possessing firearms
Failing to vacate a shared residence
Engaging in prohibited behavior (e.g., harassment, surveillance)
⚖️ Legal Framework
Violations are typically criminal offenses under state laws, and in certain cases, can lead to federal charges.
Common Statutes Used:
18 U.S.C. § 2262 (Federal) – Interstate violation of a protection order.
State penal codes (e.g., California Penal Code § 273.6, New York Penal Law § 215.51, Texas Penal Code § 25.07) – Criminalizes protective order violations at the state level.
Contempt of Court – Civil or criminal penalties for disobeying court orders.
Penalties can range from misdemeanors to felonies depending on:
The nature of the violation (e.g., contact vs. assault)
Prior history of violations
Interstate/international implications
📚 Key Case Law (More than 5 Cases, Detailed)
1. United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993)
Facts: Dixon was charged with assault and violation of a civil protection order. He claimed double jeopardy because he had already been held in criminal contempt for violating the same order.
Issue: Can someone be prosecuted for both contempt of court and for a criminal offense arising from the same conduct?
Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held that double jeopardy does not bar prosecution if the elements of the two charges are different.
Significance: Clarified that a violation of a protective order may lead to multiple legal consequences—both contempt and criminal charges.
2. People v. Wood, 21 Cal. App. 5th 1149 (2018)
Facts: Wood violated a domestic violence restraining order by contacting the victim via text and phone, and by showing up near her residence.
Legal Issues: Charged under California Penal Code § 273.6.
Outcome: Convicted; sentenced to jail and ordered to attend a batterer intervention program.
Significance: Reinforced that even indirect or non-threatening contact (like texting) can constitute a criminal violation of a protective order.
3. State v. Martin, 187 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005)
Facts: Martin violated a protective order by calling and visiting his ex-wife's workplace repeatedly.
Issue: Whether the contact constituted “harassment” and a willful violation of the order.
Outcome: Convicted of violating the order and harassment.
Significance: Emphasized that persistence and intent matter, even without physical harm.
4. United States v. Sayer, 748 F.3d 425 (1st Cir. 2014)
Facts: Sayer was convicted of violating a federal protective order by cyberstalking and posting explicit content online related to his ex-partner.
Legal Issue: Whether online behavior and interstate communication constituted violation of the protection order under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A and § 2262.
Outcome: Convicted; sentence upheld.
Significance: Set precedent that online stalking and harassment can violate protection orders and invoke federal criminal charges.
5. Commonwealth v. Delaney, 425 Mass. 587 (1997)
Facts: Delaney violated a protective order by driving past the protected party’s house multiple times.
Legal Issue: Was this behavior "contact" or an actionable violation?
Outcome: Court held that repeated drive-bys could be seen as intentional contact meant to intimidate, thus violating the order.
Significance: Expanded the interpretation of “contact” to non-verbal and indirect acts, if intended to harass.
6. State v. Reynolds, 867 N.E.2d 47 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Facts: Reynolds left a voicemail message for the protected party, which he argued was non-threatening.
Legal Issue: Whether voicemail violated a no-contact clause.
Outcome: Convicted. The court ruled that any communication, even non-threatening, was a violation.
Significance: Clarified that intent is not always required—any contact can be sufficient for criminal liability if the order prohibits it.
7. United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014)
Facts: Castleman had a prior misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and was later found in possession of firearms in violation of a protective order.
Legal Issue: Whether the prior conviction barred him from possessing firearms under federal law.
Outcome: U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction does count under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), prohibiting firearm possession.
Significance: Shows the intersection of protective orders and federal gun control laws.
🧾 Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Ruling | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Dixon (1993) | Double jeopardy & protective order | Allowed both contempt & criminal charges | Violating orders can lead to multiple charges |
| People v. Wood (2018) | Texts and phone calls as violations | Conviction upheld | Indirect contact can be criminal |
| State v. Martin (2005) | Repeated unwanted contact | Convicted | Harassment counts as violation |
| U.S. v. Sayer (2014) | Cyberstalking in violation of order | Convicted | Online abuse can trigger federal prosecution |
| Commonwealth v. Delaney | Drive-bys as “contact” | Convicted | Non-verbal intimidation violates order |
| State v. Reynolds (2007) | Voicemail as a violation | Convicted | Any communication can breach no-contact order |
| U.S. v. Castleman (2014) | Gun possession post domestic violence | Firearms ban upheld | Domestic abuse + order = federal firearms ban |
✅ Key Takeaways
Intent isn't always required — Many protective orders are strict liability.
All forms of contact can violate an order — including texts, calls, voicemails, emails, and physical presence.
Cyber violations are prosecutable — online stalking or harassment is taken seriously.
Violations can be felonies — especially if they involve threats, weapons, or repeated offenses.
Protective orders can trigger federal consequences — like firearm prohibitions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments