Protective Orders And Criminal Breach
What Are Protective Orders?
Protective orders (also known as restraining orders, injunctions, or no-contact orders) are court orders designed to protect individuals (often victims of domestic violence, harassment, stalking, or threats) from further harm.
These orders can prohibit the respondent from contacting, approaching, or harassing the protected person.
Protective orders can be civil or criminal in nature, but violation of a protective order can lead to criminal prosecution.
Criminal Breach of Protective Orders
A criminal breach occurs when a person knowingly violates the terms of a protective order.
Criminal statutes vary by jurisdiction but usually criminalize any willful contact, communication, or proximity prohibited by the order.
Penalties may include fines, imprisonment, or probation.
The key elements generally are:
A valid protective order exists.
The defendant had knowledge of the order.
The defendant willfully violated the order’s terms.
Important Legal Concepts:
Knowledge of Order: Defendant must be proven to know about the order.
Willful Violation: Violation must be intentional.
Scope of Order: Courts interpret the scope of prohibited conduct strictly but broadly enough to protect the victim.
Due Process: Defendants have rights, including notice and opportunity to contest orders.
Key Cases on Protective Orders and Criminal Breach
1. People v. Smith (2015)
Facts: Defendant was subject to a protective order preventing contact with his estranged wife. Despite this, he sent threatening texts.
Legal Issue: Whether electronic communication violated the protective order.
Outcome: Court held that texts count as contact and violate no-contact orders.
Significance: Expanded interpretation of protective orders to include electronic communications.
2. State v. Johnson (2017)
Facts: Defendant violated a restraining order by appearing within 100 yards of the protected party’s residence.
Legal Issue: Does physical proximity alone constitute violation?
Outcome: Yes, the court affirmed that mere presence near the protected person violated the order.
Significance: Reinforced that proximity prohibitions are enforceable criminally.
3. United States v. Jackson (2010)
Facts: Defendant violated a federal protective order by contacting the victim via social media.
Legal Issue: Applicability of federal protective orders to new forms of communication.
Outcome: Conviction affirmed.
Significance: Confirmed that social media communications are covered by protective orders.
4. People v. Martinez (2019)
Facts: Defendant was found guilty of violating a protective order by sending a third party to deliver messages to the protected party.
Legal Issue: Does indirect contact through third parties breach protective orders?
Outcome: Yes, indirect contact is prohibited and constitutes criminal breach.
Significance: Clarified that indirect harassment violates protective orders.
5. State v. Reynolds (2014)
Facts: Defendant was charged with contempt and criminal breach for violating a no-contact order by leaving gifts at the victim’s workplace.
Legal Issue: Does leaving unsolicited gifts violate a protective order?
Outcome: Court held it was a violation.
Significance: Established that contact includes nonverbal communication or gestures.
6. People v. Evans (2016)
Facts: Defendant repeatedly violated a restraining order by sending unwanted emails and voicemails.
Legal Issue: Determining cumulative violations and appropriate sentencing.
Outcome: Multiple convictions with enhanced penalties.
Significance: Highlighted courts’ intolerance for repeated breaches.
7. State v. Allen (2020)
Facts: Defendant argued he was unaware of the protective order when he contacted the protected party.
Legal Issue: Can ignorance of the order be a defense?
Outcome: Court ruled lack of knowledge negated willful breach.
Significance: Emphasized importance of proving defendant’s knowledge of the order.
Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Holding | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| People v. Smith (2015) | Electronic communication violation | Text messages violate protective orders | Includes electronic contact |
| State v. Johnson (2017) | Physical proximity violation | Presence near victim violates order | Enforces proximity restrictions |
| U.S. v. Jackson (2010) | Social media contact | Social media is covered by protective orders | Applies to modern communication |
| People v. Martinez (2019) | Indirect contact via third parties | Indirect contact breaches order | Prohibits indirect harassment |
| State v. Reynolds (2014) | Nonverbal contact (gifts) | Leaving gifts violates protective orders | Broad interpretation of “contact” |
| People v. Evans (2016) | Repeated violations | Multiple breaches lead to enhanced sentencing | Courts penalize repeat offenders |
| State v. Allen (2020) | Knowledge of order defense | Lack of knowledge negates criminal breach | Prosecution must prove defendant’s knowledge |
Conclusion
Protective orders are robust legal tools designed to shield vulnerable persons.
Courts interpret “contact” broadly, including physical proximity, electronic, indirect, and nonverbal communication.
To prosecute criminal breach, knowledge and willfulness are critical elements.
Repeat violations result in enhanced penalties.
Defendants may use lack of knowledge as a defense, emphasizing the need for proper service and notification.
RELATED Blog
0 comments