AB 1889 authorizes California criminal courts to issue a range of protective orders when the court has a "good cause belief" that a victim or witness has been harmed or is at risk. The bill lists specific orders the court may impose — from no-contact provisions to orders requiring defendants to relinquish firearms — and clarifies enforcement relationships between criminal, family, and emergency protective orders.
The bill also permits courts to order electronic monitoring for defendants who pose a danger, but only where a county adopts an authorizing policy and designates an agency to operate the program; courts may require defendants to pay if they can afford it. Implementation choices (which local governments authorize monitoring, who pays for it, and whether law enforcement will provide protective details) determine how much protection the law yields in practice, while raising questions about pretrial restraint, resource allocation, and uniform enforcement across counties.
At a Glance
What It Does
It allows criminal courts, on a good‑cause belief, to issue no‑contact and other protective orders in criminal cases, including firearm prohibitions and relinquishment, and to require electronic monitoring where local policy authorizes it. The statute sets penalties for violating orders and mandates transmission of certain orders to law enforcement and entry into state systems.
Who It Affects
Criminal courts, prosecutors, defense counsel, defendants charged with domestic‑violence or related offenses, county sheriffs and probation departments (if localities adopt monitoring policies), the Judicial Council and Department of Justice (form and reporting duties), and victims and witnesses — including minors present at incidents.
Why It Matters
The bill expands tools available to criminal courts for immediate and post‑sentencing protection, creates a statutory route to pretrial firearm removal tied to protective orders, and devolves key operational decisions (electronic monitoring, law enforcement protection) to counties — altering who bears fiscal and administrative responsibility for victim safety.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1889 builds a menu of protective measures that criminal courts may issue when the judge finds good cause to believe a victim or witness faces harm, intimidation, or dissuasion. The authority is broad: courts can enter no‑contact orders, prohibit violations of the anti‑intimidation statute (Section 136.1), restrict communication to attorney‑only channels, and schedule hearings to determine whether such protections should be imposed.
The statute expressly treats minors who were physically present at an act of domestic violence as witnesses who have suffered harm for these purposes.
A central element is firearm control tied to protective orders. When the court issues or considers a protective order in cases involving domestic violence or certain sex offenses, the defendant may be prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, or attempting to purchase firearms while the order is in effect, and the court must order relinquishment under the civil‑procedure mechanism in Section 527.9.
Violations are punishable under the existing felony provisions of Penal Code Section 29825. The bill requires courts to use Judicial Council forms approved by the Department of Justice for orders under some provisions, but it also preserves enforceability even if those exact forms were not used.Electronic monitoring is available as a protective-condition option, but only if the county adopts a policy authorizing it and designates the responsible agency (sheriff or probation).
Monitoring can last up to one year and the court may order the defendant to pay if able; otherwise the county may be responsible. The statute also contemplates that, in limited circumstances and upon a finding of clear and present danger, the court may order a particular law‑enforcement agency to provide protective services for victims or immediate family members — but not without agency consent except for narrowly defined emergency intervals.The bill clarifies enforcement priority among overlapping orders: emergency protective orders that are more restrictive than an existing order take precedence for those specific provisions, and no‑contact criminal orders generally have enforcement precedence over other restraining orders.
It requires courts to transmit protective‑order actions to law enforcement and the state system in a timely fashion and directs the Judicial Council to promulgate protocols and form modifications to coordinate criminal, family, and juvenile court orders that involve the same parties. At sentencing, the court may also issue long‑term protective orders — potentially up to 10 years or two years after release — and may again consider electronic monitoring as a condition.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The court may issue protective orders on a "good cause belief" that harm, intimidation, or dissuasion of a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur.
Protective orders tied to domestic‑violence or specified sex offenses can prohibit firearm ownership and possession and require relinquishment under Code of Civil Procedure Section 527.9; violations are punishable under Penal Code Section 29825.
Electronic monitoring may be imposed for up to one year if the county adopts a policy authorizing it and designates the agency; the court can require the defendant to pay if able, otherwise the county may fund it.
An emergency protective order that is more restrictive than an existing order takes enforcement precedence for those more restrictive provisions; otherwise a criminal no‑contact order generally prevails over civil orders.
At sentencing, courts may issue protective orders valid up to 10 years or two years after the person’s release from custody, whichever is later, regardless of probation or incarceration status.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Range of criminal protective orders the court may issue
This subsection lists the specific types of orders a criminal court can enter upon a good‑cause belief: Family Code no‑contact orders, prohibitions against violating Penal Code Section 136.1, restrictions on courtroom visitors or subpoenaed witnesses, attorney‑only communication rules, and hearings to determine whether such orders should issue. Practically, it gives trial judges flexible remedies beyond traditional bail conditions so they can tailor protections to the immediate risks facing victims and witnesses.
Court‑ordered law enforcement protection — narrow emergency carve‑out
The statute authorizes courts to order a specific law‑enforcement agency to provide protection for victims or immediate family members, but only with the agency’s consent except for limited periods and only upon a finding of clear and present danger. This creates a high threshold before a court can compel an agency to allocate officers or resources, preserving agency discretion while allowing judicial intervention in extreme cases.
Violent‑crime protective orders, DOJ forms, and firearm provisions
For victims of violent crimes, the court must transmit protective orders to law enforcement within one business day and to the CRPOS system for the agency that entered the original order. The subsection also contains the key firearm restrictions: courts can prohibit firearm ownership and require relinquishment, and violations are charged under Section 29825. The text requires use of Judicial Council forms approved by the DOJ but states that failure to use the form does not render an order unenforceable — reducing the risk that clerical errors will void protection.
Precedence rules between emergency, criminal, and civil orders
This part gives emergency protective orders (Family Code Chapter 2 or Section 646.91) precedence over other restraining orders only where the emergency order protects someone already covered by another order, restrains the same person, and is more restrictive for that restrained person. Otherwise, criminal no‑contact orders under Section 6320 take precedence. The effect is to create a hierarchy that courts and officers must consult when multiple orders exist and to limit the sweep of emergency orders to their incremental restrictiveness.
Standalone firearm prohibition and surrender duty
Subsection (d) restates and centralizes the rule that a person subject to a criminal protective order may not possess or attempt to obtain firearms and that the court must order relinquishment under CIV P §527.9, with violations punishable under Penal Code §29825. Including this as a discrete subsection underscores firearm removal as a distinct remedial step tied to protective orders across the criminal process.
When courts must consider protective orders and what factors to weigh
When defendants are charged with domestic violence or specified sex offenses, the court is required to consider issuing protective orders on its own motion and to mark case records to alert judges. The statute permits courts to weigh the offense’s nature, defendant‑victim relationship, likelihood of continuing harm, existing orders, criminal history, and information under Section 273.75. This embeds risk‑assessment cues into routine case processing but leaves the substance of the assessment to judicial discretion.
Coordination protocols and Judicial Council responsibilities
The Judicial Council must promulgate a protocol and revise criminal and civil protective‑order forms to ensure coordination between criminal, family, and juvenile courts. The mandated protocol aims to reduce conflicting orders, require communication between courts, and permit family‑court orders to coexist with criminal protective orders subject to safety conditions such as safe exchange language for children. Local courts must adopt substantially similar protocols, shifting some implementation work to courts and court administrators.
Sentencing orders and post‑sentencing electronic monitoring
At sentencing for qualifying offenses, the court shall consider issuing restraining orders valid up to 10 years or two years post‑release, and may impose electronic monitoring if the county has an authorizing policy. The statutory language makes long‑term protective orders a routine sentencing consideration and ties monitoring to local policy choices and payment determinations, creating variable outcomes across counties.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victims and percipient witnesses (including minors present): They gain expanded criminal‑court remedies — no‑contact orders, expedited transmission to law enforcement, firearm removal, and potential electronic monitoring — which increase immediate and post‑sentencing layers of protection.
- Prosecutors and victim‑witness units: The bill lowers procedural friction for obtaining criminal protective orders and gives prosecutors clearer statutory hooks to request firearm relinquishment and monitoring as part of criminal case processing.
- Family and juvenile court clients with overlapping cases: The Judicial Council protocols aim to reduce inconsistent orders across courts and to create clearer frameworks for custody and safe exchanges when criminal protective orders are in place.
Who Bears the Cost
- Defendants: Face additional pretrial and post‑sentencing restrictions, mandatory firearm relinquishment, potential criminal penalties for violations, and possible fees for electronic monitoring if the court finds they can pay.
- Local governments (counties): Must decide whether to adopt policies authorizing electronic monitoring and to designate responsible agencies; if counties fund monitoring for those who cannot pay, they may incur new recurring costs.
- County sheriffs, probation departments, and law enforcement agencies: May be asked to perform monitoring, receive and enforce more protective orders, or provide protective details when courts find clear and present danger — increasing operational and staffing burdens without guaranteed additional funding.
- Courts and court administrators: Required to mark records, adopt coordination protocols, transmit orders promptly to law enforcement and CRPOS, and update forms—adding administrative workload and potential need for IT or staff changes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits urgent victim and witness safety — achieved through pretrial firearm removal, no‑contact orders, and electronic monitoring — against defendants’ procedural protections and the reality that counties have unequal resources and policies, producing inconsistent access to those safety tools.
The bill allocates substantial discretion to judges and to local governments, which creates predictable variance in how protections are delivered. County choices about whether to authorize electronic monitoring, which agency will run it, and whether to absorb costs for indigent defendants will produce a patchwork of protection levels: a victim in one county may get electronic monitoring and rapid law‑enforcement response, while a similarly situated victim in another county gets only a paper order.
That raises equity and equal‑protection concerns that the statute does not resolve.
The pretrial firearm prohibition and potential for court‑ordered monitoring raise due‑process questions because courts can impose these restrictions on a “good cause belief” rather than after conviction. The statute partly mitigates risk by tying some measures to specific offenses and by providing that contempt findings do not bar later criminal prosecution (and vice versa), but it leaves open how courts should balance immediate safety against liberty when facts and risk assessments are contested.
Practical implementation also confronts logistics: surrendering firearms requires coordination with law enforcement and storage policies; one‑business‑day transmission deadlines strain court clerks and agencies; and reliance on DOJ‑approved forms combined with a rule that imperfect forms do not void orders invites litigation over procedural compliance versus substance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.