Penal Code 273.6 makes it a misdemeanor to intentionally and knowingly violate a protective or restraining order.
A first violation carries up to one year in county jail and/or a $1,000 fine. Knowledge, intent, and the validity of the order are where these cases are fought.
What PC 273.6 Says
PC 273.6(a) makes any intentional and knowing violation of a protective order a misdemeanor. That includes domestic-violence restraining orders (Family Code § 6218) and civil harassment, workplace-violence, and elder-abuse protective orders. The order can restrict contact, require a stay-away distance, or bar specific conduct — and it is the terms of the specific order that define the violation.
What the Prosecution Must Prove
Under the standard jury instruction, the People must prove four things: (1) a court lawfully issued a written order; (2) you knew about the order and its contents; (3) you had the ability to comply with it; and (4) you willfully violated it. Each element is a place the defense can attack.
Penalties
A first violation of PC 273.6(a) is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or imprisonment in county jail for not more than one year, or both. A second violation, or a violation involving an act of violence or physical injury, carries greater exposure under PC 273.6(b) and (d).
Defenses
- No knowledge of the order. You cannot violate an order you were never served with or made aware of.
- No intent. Accidental or incidental contact — running into the protected person by chance — is not an intentional and knowing violation.
- The order was not valid. A defendant may challenge the validity of the underlying order as a defense to the charge (People v. Gonzalez (1996) 12 Cal.4th 804). An expired or improperly issued order cannot support a conviction.
- No actual violation. The alleged conduct did not breach the specific terms of the order — and protected-party allegations are sometimes exaggerated or disputed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is violating a restraining order a felony or a misdemeanor?
A first violation of a protective order under PC 273.6(a) is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000. A second violation, or one involving violence or injury, carries greater exposure under PC 273.6(b) and (d).
What does the prosecution have to prove under PC 273.6?
Four things: that a court lawfully issued a written order; that you knew about the order and its contents; that you had the ability to comply with it; and that you willfully violated it. Each element can be challenged.
Can I be convicted if I didn't know about the order?
No. Knowledge of the order is a required element. If you were never served with the order or otherwise made aware of it, PC 273.6 is not made out. Accidental or incidental contact also is not an intentional and knowing violation.
Can I challenge the restraining order itself?
Yes. A defendant may challenge the validity of the underlying order as a defense to a PC 273.6 charge (People v. Gonzalez (1996) 12 Cal.4th 804). An order that was expired or not lawfully issued cannot support a conviction.
GuidesComplete Guide to California Misdemeanors · Glossary · Penalties Reference.
Free 30-Minute Consultation
A restraining-order violation turns on knowledge, intent, and the validity of the order itself. Tell me what happened and I'll tell you where the case is soft.
Schedule Free ConsultationAbout the Author
Ahmed S. Hasan
San Francisco Criminal Defense Attorney · State Bar of California #364992
Ahmed S. Hasan is the founder of ASH Legal, a solo criminal defense practice based in San Francisco. The firm runs on flat-fee representation: one lawyer, one fee, from arraignment through resolution. No hourly billing. No surprise invoices.
Ahmed is a graduate of Emory University School of Law and a member in good standing of the State Bar of California (Bar #364992). His practice focuses on San Francisco misdemeanor defense — DUI, domestic violence, petty theft and shoplifting, drug possession, vandalism, trespassing, and assault and battery — with particular attention to diversion-track outcomes that end in dismissal under PC 1001.95, PC 1001.36 (Mental Health Diversion), PC 1001.80 (Military Diversion), and PC 1001.83 (Parental Caregiver Diversion).
Ahmed previously served as a post-bar clerk with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, the city's largest indigent-defense practice. He is a member of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Silicon Valley.
He represents clients at the San Francisco Hall of Justice (850 Bryant Street) and the Civic Center Courthouse. The ASH Legal office is at 15 Boardman Place, Suite 301, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Free 30-minute consultations are available by phone or Zoom. (510) 545-6515 · ahmed@ashlegal.com