Penal Code § 273.6: Violation of a Protective Order in California

By Matthew Barhoma, Esq. — California State Bar No. 319339 | Last updated: November 2026

California Penal Code section 273.6 makes it a crime to intentionally and knowingly violate a protective order. It applies to domestic violence restraining orders, civil harassment restraining orders, workplace violence and school violence restraining orders, elder and dependent adult abuse restraining orders, and domestic violence orders from other states. A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. If the violation causes physical injury, the fine rises to $2,000 and a 30-day minimum jail term applies. A later violation can be charged as a felony in two situations only: when it involves violence or a credible threat of violence and follows a prior conviction within seven years, or when it causes physical injury and follows a prior conviction within one year. The prosecution must prove that a court issued the order, that the defendant knew of it, that the defendant was able to comply, and that the defendant intentionally violated it. The protected person’s invitation or consent is not a defense. Violations of criminal protective orders are charged under a different statute, Penal Code section 166. This page is part of the California Restraining Order Laws library maintained by the Restraining Order Law Firm; for the practical side of a violation case, see violating a California restraining order. Call (888) 808-2179 for a confidential consultation.

Penal Code § 273.6 at a glance

The text of Penal Code § 273.6

The operative subdivisions of Penal Code section 273.6 read as follows.

(a) Any intentional and knowing violation of a protective order, as defined in Section 6218 of the Family Code, or of an order issued pursuant to Section 527.6, 527.8, or 527.85 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) In the event of a violation of subdivision (a) that results in physical injury, the person shall be punished by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30 days nor more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. However, if the person is imprisoned in a county jail for at least 48 hours, the court may, in the interest of justice and for reasons stated on the record, reduce or eliminate the 30-day minimum imprisonment required by this subdivision.

(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall apply to the following court orders: (1) Any order issued pursuant to Section 6320 or 6389 of the Family Code. (2) An order excluding one party from the family dwelling or from the dwelling of the other. (3) An order enjoining a party from specified behavior that the court determined was necessary to effectuate the order described in subdivision (a). (4) Any order issued by another state that is recognized under Part 5 (commencing with Section 6400) of Division 10 of the Family Code.

(d) A subsequent conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a), occurring within seven years of a prior conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a) and involving an act of violence or “a credible threat” of violence, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 139, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

(e) In the event of a subsequent conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a) for an act occurring within one year of a prior conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a) that results in physical injury to a victim, the person shall be punished by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than six months nor more than one year, by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. However, if the person is imprisoned in a county jail for at least 30 days, the court may, in the interest of justice and for reasons stated in the record, reduce or eliminate the six-month minimum imprisonment required by this subdivision.

The official text, including subdivisions (f) through (i), is published by the Legislative Counsel at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. The section was last amended by SB 1493 (Stats. 2022, ch. 197), which updated its terminology.

What § 273.6 means in plain English

A restraining order is a court order, and § 273.6 is what gives it criminal force. Once a person knows about a covered order, doing something the order prohibits, on purpose, is a crime, whether or not anyone was hurt and whether or not the protected person objected. A text message, a phone call, a visit to the protected person’s workplace, a message passed through a friend, or coming within the stay-away distance can each be charged as a separate violation.

The statute is graduated. It starts as a misdemeanor and increases with two factors: physical injury, and prior convictions for violating an order. It does not become a felony merely because it is a second offense. That common statement is wrong. A felony requires a prior conviction and either violence, a credible threat of violence, or physical injury, within the time windows the statute sets.

Which orders § 273.6 covers

Section 273.6 covers civil protective orders. Subdivisions (a) and (c) list them.

Custody, visitation, and support terms contained in a domestic violence order are not “protective orders” under Family Code § 6218. Disobeying those terms is enforced through contempt and family court remedies, not § 273.6.

What the prosecution must prove

The elements are set out in the Judicial Council’s criminal jury instruction, CALCRIM No. 2701. The prosecution must prove each beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. A court issued a written order.
2. The order was a protective order of a kind covered by the statute.
3. The defendant knew of the court order.
4. The defendant had the ability to follow the order.
5. The defendant intentionally violated the order.

The order

The prosecution must produce the order and show it was in effect on the date of the alleged violation. Temporary orders expire at the hearing unless extended; orders after hearing carry an expiration date. A violation charged for a date after expiration, or before a temporary order was reissued, fails on this element.

Knowledge of the order

The defendant must have known of the order. The instruction explains that the prosecution must prove the defendant “had the opportunity to read the order or to otherwise become familiar with what it said,” but not that the defendant actually read it. Formal proof of service is the usual evidence of knowledge. It is not the only kind, and California statutes make several substitutes sufficient:

• Presence in court. A respondent who was present when the judge announced the order needs no further service (Fam. Code § 6384(a); Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6(q)).
• Verbal notice from an officer. If an officer finds that an order was issued but not served, the officer must tell the respondent its terms, and that “verbal notice of the terms of the order shall constitute service of the order and is sufficient notice” for purposes of § 273.6 (Fam. Code § 6383(e)).
• Mail service after a default. A respondent who was personally served with a temporary order and did not attend the hearing may be served by mail with an order after hearing whose terms are identical apart from duration (Fam. Code § 6384(a)).

“I was never served” is therefore a narrower defense than many people assume. It succeeds when the defendant truly did not know of the order or its terms; it does not succeed merely because a proof of service is missing.

Ability to comply

The defendant must have been able to obey. A stay-away order violated because both people happened to be at the same store, where the defendant left on realizing it, raises doubt on this element and on intent.

An intentional violation

Section 273.6 requires an “intentional and knowing” violation. Accidental or unknowing contact is not a crime. Courts read a knowledge requirement into stay-away terms: in People v. Kelley (2022, C089721), the Court of Appeal held that a defendant “cannot violate that provision without doing so knowingly.” The intent required is the intent to do the prohibited act, not an intent to harm or to break the law.

The penalty tiers, subdivision by subdivision

(a) The base offense

A misdemeanor: up to one year in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. Most first violations involving contact alone (calls, texts, messages, or presence without violence) are charged here. Courts commonly grant probation.

(b) Violation resulting in physical injury

A misdemeanor with a higher fine (up to $2,000) and a minimum of 30 days in county jail. The court may reduce or eliminate the 30-day minimum, for reasons stated on the record, if the person has served at least 48 hours. In deciding, the court must consider the seriousness of the facts, other alleged violations while the case is pending, the probability of future violations, the victim’s safety, and the defendant’s progress in counseling.

(d) Prior conviction within seven years, plus violence or a credible threat

This is the first felony path. A later conviction is a “wobbler,” chargeable as a misdemeanor (up to one year in county jail) or a felony (16 months, two years, or three years, served in county jail under Penal Code § 1170(h)), when:

• the defendant has a prior conviction for violating a covered order within the previous seven years, and
• the new violation involved an act of violence or a credible threat of violence.

A second violation by text message, with no violence or threat, does not qualify. The jury makes the violence finding under CALCRIM No. 2703.

(e) Prior conviction within one year, plus physical injury

The second felony path. Where the new act occurs within one year of a prior conviction and results in physical injury, the punishment is a fine of up to $2,000, six months to one year in county jail, or a felony term under § 1170(h). The court may reduce or eliminate the six-month minimum if the person has served at least 30 days, on the same considerations as subdivision (b).

(g) Firearms

Owning, possessing, buying, or receiving a firearm while knowing that a protective order prohibits it is punished under Penal Code § 29825. Possession is a misdemeanor (up to one year in county jail and a $1,000 fine). Buying or receiving a firearm, or attempting to, is a wobbler that can be charged as a felony. A person with a court-approved employment exemption is not prosecuted for the exempted firearm.

(h) and (i) Probation

Probation for a § 273.6 conviction must be consistent with Penal Code § 1203.097, the domestic violence probation statute, which includes a protective order and, where the statute applies, a 52-week batterer’s program. In place of a fine, the court may order payments of up to $5,000 to a domestic violence shelter program and reimbursement of the victim’s counseling and other expenses, after determining the defendant’s ability to pay.

§ 273.6 vs. § 166: which statute applies

Two statutes punish protective order violations, and they divide by the court that issued the order.

When both a civil order and a criminal protective order are in effect, one act of contact can violate both. See restraining order vs. protective order.

Arrest: what happens when a violation is reported

California law requires arrest in many protective order cases. When an officer responds to a call alleging a violation of a domestic violence, civil harassment, criminal, elder abuse, or juvenile court order, and has probable cause to believe the restrained person has notice of the order and violated it, the officer “shall” arrest without a warrant, whether or not the violation happened in the officer’s presence (Penal Code § 836(c)(1)).

For arrest purposes, a person is deemed to have notice if the protected person shows proof of service, the officer confirms proof of service is on file, the person was present at the hearing, or an officer told the person the contents of the order (Penal Code § 836(c)(2)). Where mutual orders exist, officers must try to identify and arrest only the dominant aggressor (§ 836(c)(3)).

An arrest is not a conviction. The standard for arrest is probable cause; the standard for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each element above.

Consent is not a defense

A protected person cannot waive a restraining order, and a restrained person who accepts an invitation to make contact has violated it. Penal Code § 13710(b) states that “the terms and conditions of the protection order remain enforceable, notwithstanding the acts of the parties, and may be changed only by order of the court.” In People v. Gams (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 147, the Court of Appeal upheld a jury instruction based on that language and rejected the argument that the protected person’s own contact made the order inapplicable. The Judicial Council’s order forms carry the same warning: the order remains in effect “even if the protected person invites or consents to contact.”

The remedy for a couple who want contact is to ask the court that issued the order to modify or terminate it. Until the judge signs a new order, the old one binds the restrained person. The protected person, for their part, cannot be arrested for inviting contact.

Defenses to a § 273.6 charge

Defenses follow the elements.

• No knowledge of the order. The defendant was not served, was not in court, and was not told of the order by an officer. This must be weighed against the notice rules above.
• No intentional violation. Contact was accidental, incidental, or unknowing: a chance encounter, a pocket dial, a message sent before service, a group email, a social media post not directed at the protected person. In People v. Planchard (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 157, the § 273.6 count rested on the defendant going to the protected person’s home, not on earlier Facebook posts.
• The conduct was not prohibited. Orders are read as written. Many permit specified contact: peaceful contact for child exchanges, communication through a co-parenting application, attendance at court. Conduct within an exception is not a violation.
• The order was not in effect. It had expired, had not been reissued after a continuance, or had been terminated.
• Inability to comply. Compliance was impossible in the circumstances, such as a shared workplace or residence not addressed by the order.
• False accusation and insufficient proof. A report of contact unsupported by phone records, messages, or witnesses may not prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Phone records, location data, and surveillance footage frequently contradict the account.
• The order was void. California does not follow the collateral bar rule. In People v. Gonzalez (1996) 12 Cal.4th 804, the California Supreme Court held that “the defendant in a contempt proceeding in this state may challenge the validity of an injunction” in the criminal case, because “there can be no contempt of a void injunctive order” (see also In re Berry (1968) 68 Cal.2d 137). The defense is limited to orders that are unconstitutional or beyond the court’s jurisdiction. An order that is merely erroneous must be obeyed until it is changed: “a party may not defend against enforcement of a court order by contending merely that the order is legally erroneous” (People v. Sorden (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 582).
• The statute of limitations. A misdemeanor prosecution must begin within one year of the violation (Penal Code § 802(a)).

Civil contempt: the other way an order is enforced

A protected person does not have to wait for a prosecutor. The court that issued the order can punish a violation as contempt under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1209 and 1218: a fine of up to $1,000, up to five days in jail, or both, plus the attorney’s fees the protected person spent on the contempt proceeding. For orders made under the Family Code, § 1218(c) prescribes community service and jail measured in hours for each finding of contempt. A district attorney or city attorney may also bring contempt proceedings to enforce a domestic violence order (§ 1218(d)).

Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal. The accused has the right to counsel, the right not to testify, and the protection of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequences beyond the sentence

A § 273.6 conviction reaches further than the jail term or fine.

• The restraining order itself. A violation is the strongest evidence a protected person can offer to renew an order. In Lister v. Bowen (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 319, a knowing violation supported renewal, and in N.T. v. H.T. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 595, violations of a temporary order were held to be abuse that could support the final order.
• Custody. A violation is evidence in any custody proceeding and bears on the presumption against custody in Family Code § 3044.
• Firearms. Federal law separately prohibits firearm possession by a person subject to a qualifying order protecting an intimate partner or child (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)), a prohibition the United States Supreme Court upheld in United States v. Rahimi (2024) 602 U.S. 680.
• Immigration. A noncitizen is deportable if a court determines that the person violated the portion of a protection order that involves “protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury” (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii)). The statute turns on a court’s determination, and the Ninth Circuit has held that a conviction is not required (Diaz-Quirazco v. Barr (9th Cir. 2019) 931 F.3d 830). Violations of stay-away and no-contact terms of a domestic violence order are treated as falling within it. A noncitizen charged under § 273.6 should get immigration advice before any plea.
• Bail, probation, and a pending case. A new violation while on probation or on release in another case is a violation of those terms too.

How a § 273.6 case connects to the restraining order case

A violation charge and the underlying restraining order case run on separate tracks in separate courtrooms, with the same facts in both. What a restrained person says in the civil hearing, in a declaration, or to the protected person can be used by the prosecutor. A plea in the criminal case can decide the renewal hearing in the civil one. The firm treats them as one matter: the criminal defense, the civil hearing, and any request to modify the order are planned together. See defending against a restraining order and the restraining order process.

How the Restraining Order Law Firm handles violation cases

The Restraining Order Law Firm is a d/b/a of Barhoma Law, P.C., whose attorneys handle restraining order matters and the criminal cases that arise from them. The most effective protection against a violation charge is ending or narrowing the order that makes ordinary contact a crime. The firm’s results include domestic violence and civil harassment requests denied after trial at the Lamoreaux Justice Center, Stanley Mosk, Long Beach, Palm Springs, and Corona courthouses; an existing domestic violence order set aside by motion at the Metropolitan Courthouse; and dismissals negotiated at Stanley Mosk, Santa Monica, and the Central Justice Center. For protected persons, the firm has obtained orders after trial and the renewal of a civil harassment order in Los Angeles County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

The firm appears in every courthouse in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties, from offices at 835 Wilshire Blvd., Floor 5, Los Angeles 90017 and 695 Town Center Dr., #1200, Costa Mesa 92626.

Frequently asked questions

Consult With a Restraining Order Lawyer Today

If you have been arrested for or accused of violating a restraining order, do not explain yourself to the police or to the protected person before you have advice: what you say will be used in the criminal case and in the restraining order case. If you are a protected person and the order is being violated, the order can be enforced and strengthened. Call (888) 808-2179 or request a confidential consultation with the Restraining Order Law Firm. We will review the order, the alleged violation, and both cases together. If the situation is urgent, our 24/7 emergency help line is available now.

The Restraining Order Law Firm is a d/b/a of Barhoma Law, P.C. This page is attorney advertising and general information about California law, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statutes, forms, and deadlines change — verify all references with counsel before relying on them. If you are in immediate danger, call 911.