Criminal Protective Orders in California (Penal Code § 136.2)

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

A criminal protective order (CPO) is an order issued by a California criminal court, in a pending criminal case, that bars the defendant from contacting, harassing, or coming near a victim or witness. It is issued under Penal Code section 136.2 — usually at arraignment, on the prosecutor’s request, without the defendant having been convicted of anything — and it lasts while the case is pending. After a conviction for a domestic violence or other listed offense, the sentencing court may issue a separate post-conviction protective order lasting up to 10 years (Pen. Code § 136.2(i)(1); § 646.9(k)), or up to 15 years after a conviction under Penal Code § 273.5 (§ 273.5(j)). A CPO is different from a civil restraining order: the prosecutor controls it, the protected person cannot drop it, and in a domestic violence case it takes precedence over a conflicting civil order (§ 136.2(e)(2)). Violating it is a crime. The Restraining Order Law Firm represents defendants seeking to narrow, modify, or terminate criminal protective orders — and protected persons who want a CPO changed, kept, or enforced — throughout Southern California. Call (888) 808-2179 for a confidential consultation.

Criminal protective order vs. restraining order: the difference

A criminal protective order and a civil restraining order are different orders, issued by different courts, under different statutes, for different reasons. The table below is the comparison people search for most.

The short version: a restraining order is something the protected person asks for in civil court and can ask to end; a criminal protective order is something the State obtains in a criminal case and the protected person cannot end. Many people in Southern California are subject to both at the same time, which is why the firm handles both. See our guides to domestic violence restraining orders and civil harassment restraining orders.

When a criminal protective order is issued

A criminal protective order under Penal Code § 136.2 may be issued at any point in a criminal case — typically at the arraignment, the defendant’s first court appearance — “upon a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur” (§ 136.2(a)(1)). The prosecutor requests it; the court decides. The defendant has not been convicted and the protected person has not filed anything.

In domestic violence cases. When the charge is a crime involving domestic violence as defined in Penal Code § 13700 or Family Code § 6211 — most commonly § 273.5 (corporal injury), § 243(e)(1) (domestic battery), § 422 (criminal threats), § 646.9 (stalking), or § 273.6 (violating an existing order) — the court must consider a protective order on its own motion, even if the prosecutor does not ask (§ 136.2(e)(1)), and in deciding whether good cause exists it may consider the nature of the charge itself and the defendant’s prior history provided under § 273.75 (§ 136.2(h)(1)). If the court does not issue a full no-contact order in a domestic violence case, it must still consider an order that at minimum prohibits the defendant from owning or possessing firearms and requires relinquishment under Code of Civil Procedure § 527.9 (§ 136.2(a)(1)(G)(ii)). In practice, a CPO issues in nearly every Southern California domestic violence arraignment.

In other cases. Outside domestic violence and the listed sex offenses, the court needs an actual showing of good cause. In Babalola v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 948, the Court of Appeal held that in a non-domestic-violence assault case the prosecution had to show good cause to believe that intimidation or dissuasion of the victim had occurred or was reasonably likely; “a mere finding of past harm to the victim or a witness is not sufficient,” and “a single assault (even an aggravated assault as charged here), standing alone, is not enough.” And in People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, the court struck a protective order where the prosecutor offered no evidence of threats or interference: “a prosecutor’s wish to have such an order, without more, is not an adequate showing.”

Who can be protected. A victim or witness in the case. The statute’s definition of “victim” is broad, but it is not unlimited: in People v. Selga (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 113, the court confirmed that a § 136.2 order protects victims and witnesses of the charged offenses, not anyone the prosecutor names.

What a criminal protective order prohibits: no-contact vs. peaceful contact

A criminal protective order in a domestic violence case is issued on mandatory Judicial Council Form CR-160 (Criminal Protective Order—Domestic Violence); in other cases on Form CR-161. The judge checks the terms that apply. The two most common configurations are:

Full no-contact (sometimes called a “Level 1” order). The defendant must not contact the protected person in any way — in person, by phone, text, email, social media, or through a third party — must stay a stated distance away (commonly 100 yards) from the protected person’s home, workplace, vehicle, and school, and must move out of a shared residence. This is the default in domestic violence cases with injury or a prior history.

Peaceful contact (sometimes called a “Level 2” order). The defendant may have contact with the protected person, but any contact must be peaceful: no harassment, threats, violence, stalking, or surveillance. Peaceful-contact orders allow the parties to live together and co-parent, and they are commonly entered — at arraignment or on later modification — where the protected person wants contact, there is no injury, and the court is satisfied the risk is manageable.

Every CPO also prohibits the defendant from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving firearms while it is in effect, requires relinquishment of firearms and ammunition within 24 hours of service and the filing of a receipt within 48 hours (Code Civ. Proc. § 527.9(b); Form CR-162 in domestic violence cases), and makes possession a crime under Penal Code § 29825. The order is transmitted to law enforcement within one business day and entered in the California Restraining and Protective Order System (§ 136.2(a)(1)(G)(i)), so it is enforceable by any officer in the state.

The terms matter enormously to a defendant. A full no-contact order with a move-out provision removes the defendant from the home, the children, and often the family finances for the life of the case — typically six months to two years. Narrowing it to peaceful contact, or carving out exceptions for child exchanges, counsel-facilitated communication, or retrieving property, is frequently the most consequential thing a defense lawyer does in the first week of a domestic violence case.

How long a criminal protective order lasts

A pretrial CPO lasts as long as the criminal case. It expires when the case ends — by dismissal, acquittal, or sentencing — unless it is replaced by a post-conviction order. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly held that a § 136.2 order “is operative only during the pendency of criminal proceedings and as a prejudgment order” (People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153; People v. Selga, supra; People v. Ponce, supra). A fixed-term CPO imposed at sentencing on a defendant sent to prison, without statutory authority, is unauthorized and will be stricken.

A post-conviction order lasts up to 10 years — or 15. Three statutes authorize longer orders after conviction:

• Penal Code § 136.2(i)(1). After a conviction for a crime involving domestic violence, specified sex offenses, human trafficking, a § 186.22 gang offense, or any offense requiring sex-offender registration, the sentencing court “shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime,” valid “for up to 10 years, as determined by the court,” regardless of whether the sentence is prison, jail, mandatory supervision, or probation. The sentencing court may modify it throughout its term. The statute directs that the duration be based on “the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations, the safety of a victim and the victim’s immediate family,” and the defendant’s history.
• Penal Code § 273.5(j). After a conviction for corporal injury to a spouse, cohabitant, or dating partner, the court “shall also consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 15 years.” The 15-year maximum was enacted by AB 2308 (Stats. 2024, ch. 649), effective January 1, 2025; before that the maximum was 10. Under § 273.5(j)(2), the prosecutor, the defendant, or the victim may petition in writing to modify or terminate the order for good cause, on at least 15 days’ notice to all three.
• Penal Code § 646.9(k). After a stalking conviction, a no-contact order valid for up to 10 years. In People v. Clayburg (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 86, the court held that a stalking victim’s child who suffered emotional harm could be a protected person under § 646.9(k).

A probation CPO lasts the probation term. When a defendant is placed on probation for a crime against a person in a Family Code § 6211 relationship, the terms of probation must include “a criminal court protective order protecting the victim from further acts of violence, threats, stalking, sexual abuse, and harassment, and, if appropriate, containing residence exclusion or stay-away conditions” (Pen. Code § 1203.097(a)(2)), along with a 52-week batterer’s intervention program and the other mandatory domestic violence probation conditions. A § 1203.097 protective order applies only where the victim is in a § 6211 relationship with the defendant; in Selga, an order protecting a non-family victim under § 1203.097 was stricken.

Who a post-conviction order can protect has narrowed. Earlier cases read “victim” broadly: People v. Beckemeyer (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 461 upheld a 10-year order protecting the adult son of the defendant’s dating partner because the defendant had assaulted him during the domestic violence incident, while People v. Delarosarauda (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 205 vacated an order as to children who were never harmed, and People v. Race (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 211 allowed protection of a person named in a dismissed count. The 2018 amendment to § 136.2(i)(1) added the words “a victim of the crime,” and the courts have since held that a post-conviction order may protect only victims of the offense of conviction: People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640 vacated an order protecting a person named in a deadlocked count, and People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127 struck family members who were not victims of the § 288.5 count of conviction, declining to follow Race on that point. For a defendant, this means a post-conviction order that sweeps in non-victims is challengeable at sentencing and on appeal.

Criminal protective order and a DVRO at the same time

It is common in Southern California for a defendant to be subject to a criminal protective order in the criminal case and a domestic violence restraining order the protected person obtained in family court. The two orders are independent: a civil dismissal does not end the CPO, and a criminal dismissal does not end the DVRO. When their terms conflict, Penal Code § 136.2 supplies the rules.

The CPO controls. Once a complaint, information, or indictment charging a crime involving domestic violence (or a listed sex offense) has been filed, a protective order issued by the criminal court in that case “has precedence in enforcement over a civil court order against the defendant” (§ 136.2(e)(2)). If the DVRO permits peaceful contact and the CPO prohibits all contact, the CPO governs and the contact is a crime.

Except an emergency protective order that is more restrictive. An emergency protective order issued by police under Family Code § 6250 takes precedence over any other order, including a CPO, but only as to the provisions that are “more restrictive in relation to the restrained person” and only where it protects the same persons against the same restrained person (§ 136.2(c)(1)).

Custody and visitation orders coexist. The Legislature directed the Judicial Council to adopt a protocol so that criminal, family, and juvenile orders against the same defendant are coordinated. A family court order permitting contact between the restrained parent and the children may coexist with a CPO, provided it “shall provide for the safe exchange of the children and shall not contain language, either printed or handwritten, that violates a ‘no-contact order’ issued by a criminal court,” and “the safety of all parties shall be the courts’ paramount concern” (§ 136.2(f)). In practice, a defendant with a CPO who wants to see the children needs the criminal court to carve out an exception for exchanges — or the family court to structure exchanges through a third party — and must not rely on a family court visitation order to override a no-contact CPO.

Why the two tracks need one strategy. The civil hearing and the criminal case use the same facts. Testimony at the DVRO hearing is sworn and can be used by the prosecutor; a defendant who testifies waives the Fifth Amendment as to that testimony. A DVRO denied after trial is powerful leverage in the criminal case; a criminal conviction can supply the finding of domestic violence that triggers the Family Code § 3044 custody presumption. The firm handles both tracks together so that nothing said in one proceeding damages the other. See defending against a restraining order and domestic violence restraining orders and child custody.

How to modify or lift a criminal protective order

A criminal protective order can be modified — typically from full no-contact to peaceful contact — or terminated by the criminal court that issued it. The protected person cannot waive it, and the defendant cannot rely on the protected person’s invitation; contact is a violation until the court changes the order. The process:

1. A written request to the criminal court. There is no statewide Judicial Council form to request modification of a CPO (Form CR-165, the Notice of Termination of Protective Order in Criminal Proceeding, is the order the court issues when it ends one; many Los Angeles and Orange County courthouses use local forms). The defendant, through counsel, files a motion to modify the protective order and serves the prosecutor. For a post-conviction order under § 273.5(j), the statute itself provides that the prosecutor, defendant, or victim may petition for modification or termination on 15 days’ notice. For a § 136.2(i)(1) order, the sentencing court in the county of issuance may modify it throughout its term.

2. The protected person’s position. The court will want to hear from the protected person. A declaration stating that the protected person wants contact, is not afraid, has not been pressured, and understands the order can be reinstated is the single most persuasive document in a modification motion. Prosecutors routinely interview the protected person before taking a position, and victims have a constitutional right under Marsy’s Law (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28) to notice and to be heard. But the decision belongs to the judge, not the protected person or the prosecutor: the court may deny modification even where the protected person consents, and it may grant it over the prosecutor’s objection.

3. The hearing. The court considers the nature of the charge, any injury, the defendant’s record, compliance with the existing order, participation in counseling or a batterer’s program, whether the parties share children or a home, and the protected person’s stated wishes and apparent freedom from coercion. The court may modify in stages — peaceful contact first, with the stay-away lifted later — and may add conditions.

4. Timing. Modification can be requested at arraignment, at any pretrial hearing, at sentencing, or after sentencing. The strongest motions come after a period of demonstrated compliance and with the protected person’s support. A motion filed days after arraignment, before the prosecutor has reviewed the file, rarely succeeds unless the facts are unusually favorable.

What happens when the case ends. On dismissal or acquittal, the pretrial CPO terminates and the court issues a CR-165 notice of termination so the order is removed from CLETS. On a plea or conviction, the pretrial order is replaced by whatever the sentencing court issues — a probation CPO under § 1203.097, a post-conviction order under § 136.2(i)(1), § 273.5(j), or § 646.9(k), or no order. A defendant entering a plea should negotiate the protective-order terms as part of the plea, because the order outlasts the sentence in many cases. Diversion (Pen. Code § 1001.36 or § 1001.95) does not automatically end a CPO; the order ordinarily remains in effect during the diversion period unless modified.

Violating a criminal protective order

Violating a criminal protective order is a separate crime. A willful and knowing violation of a protective order issued under § 136.2 in a domestic violence case is prosecuted under Penal Code § 166(c)(1); violations of civil and other protective orders are prosecuted under § 273.6. Either is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail and a fine, with mandatory minimum jail where the violation involves violence or a prior violation, and a felony option for a second violation involving violence within seven years. The “knowingly” requirement is implicit: in People v. Kelley (2022, C089721), the court held a 400-yard stay-away provision was not vague because § 166(c)(1) requires a willful and knowing violation.

A violation also breaches the defendant’s bail or own-recognizance conditions — exposing the defendant to remand and new bail — and, after conviction, breaches probation. And the protected person’s consent is no defense: a defendant who returns home at the protected person’s invitation while a no-contact order is in effect has violated the order. If an arrest for a violation is possible, the defendant needs counsel before speaking to police; the protected person needs to understand that reporting a violation starts a new case. See violating a California restraining order.

What a criminal protective order does to the rest of your life

Because a CPO is issued at arraignment on a good-cause standard, before any finding of guilt, its collateral consequences fall on people who are presumed innocent:

• Housing. A move-out provision removes the defendant from a shared home immediately. The defendant may retrieve belongings only with a civil standby or as the order permits.
• Children. A full no-contact order prevents contact with the protected parent, and often with the children if they are named as protected persons; the court must specify exchange terms before any visitation can occur.
• Firearms. Relinquishment within 24 hours, receipt filed within 48, prohibition for the life of the order — and, after conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, a federal lifetime ban under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). Peace officers, security guards, and military members may lose their positions.
• Employment and licensing. The order appears in CLETS and in a criminal background check for the life of the case; professional licensing boards and employers with security clearances receive notice of the underlying arrest.
• Immigration. A conviction for violating a protection order issued to prevent domestic violence is a deportable offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii), and a domestic violence conviction is independently deportable; the protective order itself is not a conviction, but the consequences of a violation are severe for non-citizens.

None of this is reason for a defendant to ignore the order. All of it is reason to move to narrow it.

For protected persons: what a criminal protective order does and does not do for you

A criminal protective order protects you without any filing, fee, hearing, or testimony, and it is enforced by the police and the prosecutor rather than by you. Those are real advantages. Its limits are also real: it exists only as long as the criminal case does, the prosecutor — not you — decides whether to ask for it, it does not give you custody, support, or exclusive use of the home beyond the move-out provision, and if the case is dismissed or the defendant is acquitted, it vanishes.

For lasting protection, a protected person should consider filing for a domestic violence restraining order in family court while the criminal case is pending. The DVRO can last five years, can be renewed permanently, can include custody, visitation, support, and property orders, and survives the criminal case. The firm has obtained domestic violence restraining orders after trial for clients who were also protected persons in criminal cases, including a Los Angeles County order with $11,000 in attorney’s fees awarded against the restrained party. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

If you are a protected person who wants the CPO changed — to allow peaceful contact, to permit co-parenting, or to end it — you have the right to be heard, and a declaration from you carries weight. The firm represents protected persons in those motions as well.

How the Restraining Order Law Firm handles criminal protective orders

The Restraining Order Law Firm is a d/b/a of Barhoma Law, P.C., a Southern California firm whose attorneys handle restraining order matters and the criminal cases that run alongside them. In criminal protective order matters, we:

• Appear at arraignment to argue for peaceful contact rather than full no-contact, and for exceptions covering child exchanges, counsel-facilitated communication, and property retrieval.
• File motions to modify or terminate CPOs with a supporting declaration from the protected person, a compliance record, and the facts that address the court’s actual concerns.
• Challenge post-conviction orders that exceed the statute — protecting non-victims, running past the authorized term, or issued without the required findings — at sentencing and on appeal.
• Negotiate protective-order terms as part of any plea so that the order does not outlast the sentence by a decade.
• Defend the parallel civil restraining order case so that the testimony, evidence, and outcome in one proceeding support rather than undermine the other. The firm’s restraining order results include domestic violence petitions denied after trial at the Lamoreaux Justice Center and Stanley Mosk Courthouse, an existing order set aside by motion at the Metropolitan Courthouse, and petitions dismissed by negotiation at Stanley Mosk, Santa Monica, and the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

We appear in every criminal and family 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 a criminal protective order was issued against you at arraignment, the terms can be narrowed — but only by a motion the court finds persuasive, and only by a lawyer who understands both the criminal case and the restraining order case running next to it. If you are a protected person who needs the order changed, kept, or backed up by a civil order that will outlast the criminal case, the same is true. Call (888) 808-2179 or request a confidential consultation with the Restraining Order Law Firm. We will review the order, tell you what the court will require to change it, and handle both tracks 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.