DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW — CALIFORNIA
Violation of a Protective Order in California — PC §273.6
Violating a domestic violence restraining order or criminal protective order under PC §273.6 is a misdemeanor or felony. Even minimal contact — a text message or driving past someone's home — can result in arrest and jail.
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
On This Page
Jump to a Section
Quick Reference
Violation of Protective Order California — At a Glance
- Law / Code
- PC §273.6
- Classification
- Misdemeanor (first) / Felony (repeat or with violence)
- Maximum Penalty
- Up to 1 year jail (misdemeanor) / 16 months–3 years (felony)
- Probation Eligible
- Yes
- Strike Offense
- No
What Is Violation of Protective Order California Under California Law?
Legal Framework. Penal Code section 273.6 makes it a crime to intentionally and knowingly violate the terms of a protective order. The order may be a domestic violence restraining order, civil harassment order, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining order, workplace violence order, or a criminal protective order issued in a pending criminal case. The prosecution must prove a valid order existed, the defendant knew of it, and the defendant intentionally committed an act prohibited by it. A person need not intend to violate the law; however, an accidental act or conduct undertaken without knowledge of the order does not satisfy the statute. Terms commonly prohibit contact, harassment, threats, stalking, coming within a stated distance, firearm possession, or going to protected locations such as a residence, workplace, school, or child-care facility.
The Prosecution's Burden. A basic violation of PC § 273.6 is generally a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000. The offense can be charged as a felony when the alleged violation involves an act of violence or a credible threat of violence and the defendant has a qualifying prior conviction for violating a protective order within the preceding seven years, as specified in PC § 273.6(d). A felony conviction can carry 16 months, two years, or three years in county jail under PC § 1170(h), subject to the statute’s terms. The court may also impose probation conditions, batterer intervention programming where applicable, protective-order extensions, firearm restrictions, and restitution. A violation involving injury may trigger the enhanced punishment provisions of PC § 273.6(b).
Potential Consequences. PC § 273.6 addresses violation of an order; it is distinct from the conduct that may have led to the order or may accompany its alleged breach. For example, a threat can be separately charged under PC § 422, stalking under PC § 646.9, domestic battery under PC § 243(e)(1), corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant under PC § 273.5, and contempt of court under PC § 166. In Los Angeles County, police commonly arrest on a reported order violation based on dispatch records, a protected person’s statement, screenshots, call logs, surveillance, or body-worn-camera footage. The District Attorney’s Office may file PC § 273.6 alone for a text, call, social-media contact, or stay-away violation, or file it with substantive domestic violence allegations when the claimed contact involved threats or force.
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends Violation of Protective Order California Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. attacks the elements of PC §273.6 and drives outcomes that avoid conviction where possible.
No Knowing Notice of the Order
Knowledge is an express element of PC § 273.6. The prosecution must prove the defendant knew about the operative protective order and its relevant terms when the alleged violation occurred. Personal service is common proof, but it is not the only possible proof; actual knowledge may be established through a court appearance, prior admissions, communications, or other evidence. The defense examines the proof of service, minute orders, Judicial Council forms, body-camera statements, and the exact order allegedly in effect. An expired, superseded, unserved, or ambiguously transmitted order may not support a conviction. Where the evidence leaves reasonable doubt about actual knowledge of the particular restriction, the charge should fail.
U.S. Const. amend. IV
The Alleged Conduct Was Not Prohibited
Protective orders must be read according to their actual language, not according to a witness’s interpretation of them. Some orders prohibit all contact; others allow peaceful contact concerning children, permit written communication through a parenting application, or impose only a specified stay-away distance. A prosecutor must identify the term allegedly violated and prove that the charged conduct fell within it. Defense counsel compares the accusation with the signed order, attachments, court minutes, and later modifications. A message about an allowed child-exchange arrangement, presence at a public location outside the restricted distance, or communication initiated and permitted under a narrow exception may not violate the order. This is an element-based defense, not a request for forgiveness.
17 CCR §1219.3
Accident, Mistake, or Lack of Willful Conduct
PC § 273.6 requires an intentional and knowing violation. The word “willfully” does not require an intent to break the law, but it does require a purposeful act rather than an accident, involuntary event, or conduct that was not under the defendant’s control. An unplanned encounter in a shared apartment complex, accidental phone dialing, a message sent by another person using the defendant’s account, or a route forced by road closures can create a factual defense. The key is contemporaneous evidence: location data, call records, video, third-party witnesses, traffic conditions, and the timing of messages. A credible lack of intentional conduct can defeat the required mental state even if the protected person felt alarmed.
NHTSA SFST
Identification and Digital-Evidence Challenges
Many PC § 273.6 cases turn on who actually sent a text, made a call, created a social-media account, drove past a location, or appeared in a video. A screenshot may not establish authorship, date, completeness, or whether messages were altered, deleted, or taken out of context. Caller identification can be spoofed; shared devices and accounts can be used by others; and a brief surveillance image may be unreliable. The defense seeks the original device data, full message threads, carrier records, account logs, metadata, and video files rather than accepting summaries or cropped images. If the prosecution cannot reliably identify the defendant as the actor, it cannot prove a willful violation beyond a reasonable doubt.
VC §23152
Invalid, Expired, or Materially Uncertain Order
The People must prove a valid protective order was in force at the time of the alleged breach. That requires careful review of the issuing court, effective and expiration dates, proof that the order was entered, any continuances or renewals, and later modifications. Confusion often arises when parties rely on an old copy while a court has changed the terms, terminated the order, or issued a replacement order. The defense also evaluates whether the term the prosecution relies on is sufficiently identifiable in the operative document. A defendant cannot be convicted for violating a restriction that was no longer in effect or for conduct outside the scope of the enforceable order. Court records, not assumptions, control this issue.
17 CCR §1219.1
Reduce Exposure Through Early Case Resolution
When the evidence supports a technical violation, the defense can still focus on the actual risk, context, and proportionality of the response. A nonthreatening communication, prompt cessation of contact, lack of injury, compliance with counseling, and a clean or limited record can materially affect charging and sentencing decisions. Counsel may present mitigation early to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, seek a misdemeanor filing rather than a felony theory where legally available, and argue for probationary terms that avoid unnecessary custody. Any resolution must preserve strict compliance with the protective order; the protected person cannot privately waive a court order. The goal is to reduce criminal consequences without treating the order as optional.
VC §23103.5
Constitutional Sources: Fourth Amendment — U.S. Constitution
Questions
Frequently Asked — Violation of Protective Order California
What must the prosecutor prove under PC § 273.6?
To prove a violation of Penal Code section 273.6, the prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a valid protective order was in effect, the defendant knew of the order, and the defendant intentionally and knowingly violated a term of that order. The order can arise in a criminal case or in civil restraining-order proceedings, including domestic violence matters. The prosecution must prove the actual restriction at issue, such as a no-contact, stay-away, no-harassment, or firearm term. It is not enough that the protected person believed the conduct was inappropriate. The conduct must be prohibited by the operative order, and the defendant must have acted willfully rather than through accident or without knowledge of the order’s terms.
Is violating a restraining order always a misdemeanor?
No. A violation of PC § 273.6 is commonly charged as a misdemeanor, with potential punishment of up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000. But PC § 273.6(d) permits felony treatment in specified circumstances, including when the violation includes an act of violence or a credible threat of violence and the person has a qualifying prior conviction for violating a protective order within seven years. PC § 273.6(b) also provides increased punishment where a violation results in physical injury. The filing decision depends on the order, the alleged conduct, injuries or threats, criminal history, and available evidence. A misdemeanor case can still carry serious probation conditions and long-term consequences.
Can I be arrested for one text message or phone call?
Yes. If the order prohibits direct or indirect contact, a single text, call, voicemail, email, social-media message, or message sent through another person can be alleged as a violation of PC § 273.6. The protected person does not need to answer, complain immediately, or suffer physical injury. However, the prosecution still must prove that the message was sent by the defendant, that the defendant knew of the order, and that the specific order prohibited the contact. The entire communication history can matter. For example, the order may contain a narrow exception for child-related communication, or the evidence may not reliably establish authorship. Do not send further messages to explain or apologize; that can create additional allegations.
What if the protected person contacted me first or invited me over?
The protected person’s invitation, consent, or first contact does not automatically cancel a court order. Only the issuing court can modify or terminate a protective order. A person restrained by a no-contact or stay-away order can still be prosecuted under PC § 273.6 for responding, meeting, or approaching, even if the protected person requested it. That said, the circumstances may matter to whether the order actually prohibited the specific conduct, whether the contact was intentional, and how the case should be resolved. Save relevant communications, but do not use an invitation as permission to resume contact. The safer course is to follow the written order exactly and seek a formal modification through counsel and the issuing court.
Will a PC § 273.6 conviction affect my gun rights or employment?
It can. Many protective orders independently prohibit firearm possession or acquisition while the order remains in effect, and California law may require firearms to be relinquished or sold through a licensed dealer under the terms of the order. A conviction under PC § 273.6 may also create employment problems because background checks can reveal the case, particularly in jobs involving security clearances, professional licensing, government work, schools, health care, or positions requiring trust and contact with vulnerable people. Immigration consequences can be fact-specific and may be severe when the alleged conduct involves threats, violence, or related domestic violence charges. The exact consequences depend on the disposition, the order, prior convictions, and the person’s immigration and employment status.
What happens after an arrest for violating a protective order in Los Angeles?
After an LAPD or LASD arrest, the person may be booked, cited and released, or held for a bail and arraignment decision. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office reviews the police reports and supporting evidence before filing most felony and many misdemeanor cases. At arraignment, the court states the charge, addresses counsel and release conditions, and may issue or continue a criminal protective order under PC § 136.2. Defense work should begin immediately: preserve texts and account data, obtain the operative order and proof of service, identify witnesses, and avoid any further prohibited contact. A lawyer can also assess suppression issues, factual defenses, and early mitigation. For case-specific help, Rubin Law, P.C. can be reached at (213) 723-2337.
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Charged with Violation of Protective Order California? Call Rubin Law Now.
Daniel S. Rubin defends clients facing domestic violence charges throughout Los Angeles County. Your first consultation is free and confidential.