This bill authorizes California criminal courts to issue a broader set of protective orders when the court finds good cause to believe a victim or witness faces harm, intimidation, or dissuasion. It lets courts bar communication (including against non-defendants), require immediate firearm relinquishment and makes violations punishable under Penal Code Section 29825; it also creates a pathway for courts to order law-enforcement protection and, where local policy allows, electronic monitoring of defendants.
The mechanics matter: courts must transmit certain orders to law enforcement quickly, the Judicial Council must adopt forms (with DOJ approval), and the statute sets precedence rules between emergency, criminal, and civil orders. The bill shifts concrete operational and fiscal responsibilities to counties, courts, law enforcement, and defendants — creating new enforcement, record-marking, and coordination duties that prosecutors, defense counsel, and local officials will need to operationalize.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill permits courts to issue a range of protective orders in criminal cases — no-contact/no-communication orders (including against subpoenaed witnesses), orders requiring firearm relinquishment, orders directing a law enforcement agency to provide protection, and authorizes electronic monitoring where local governments adopt a policy. It also creates transmission, form, and precedence rules for enforcing those orders.
Who It Affects
Criminal courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys; county sheriffs, probation departments, and local law enforcement agencies; victims and witnesses (including minors present during domestic violence); the Judicial Council and Department of Justice for form adoption and data transmission.
Why It Matters
It brings criminal protective orders into direct operational effect by tying them to firearm-dispossession law, mandating prompt transmission to law enforcement systems, and allowing local governments to use electronic monitoring — changing how courts and counties manage victim safety and enforcement logistics.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill starts from a low bar: when a criminal court has a good cause belief that a victim or witness has been or may be harmed, intimidated, or dissuaded, the court may issue a broad menu of protective orders. Those include orders modeled on family-code no-contact orders, prohibitions on violating anti-intimidation statutes, no-communication directives that can apply to people other than the defendant (for example, subpoenaed witnesses), and orders that require contact only through counsel.
The statute expressly treats minors who were physically present during an act of domestic violence as harmed witnesses for these purposes.
For domestic-violence-related charges and several enumerated serious offenses, the court must consider issuing these orders on its own motion; it must also mark criminal case records to flag such cases so judges see the issue. The bill requires courts to transmit certain protective orders to law enforcement personnel within one business day and directs that orders entered into the California Restraining and Protective Order System be kept consistent when modified, extended, or terminated.
The Judicial Council must adopt standardized forms and the DOJ must approve them, although the bill clarifies that failure to use the approved form does not, by itself, make an order unenforceable.Two enforcement tools are front and center. First, a person subject to a protective order may not own, possess, purchase, or attempt to purchase a firearm while the order is in effect, and the court must order relinquishment under existing civil-code procedures; violations are prosecuted under Penal Code Section 29825.
Second, the statute allows electronic monitoring of defendants when a county adopts a policy authorizing it and designates an agency to oversee monitoring. The court may require defendants who can pay to cover monitoring costs; otherwise the local government that adopted the policy may pay.
Monitoring is limited to one year and ends if the protective order is lifted.The bill also sorts competing orders: an emergency protective order that is more restrictive than an existing order has enforcement precedence for those more restrictive provisions; otherwise criminal no-contact orders take priority over civil orders. On conviction or at sentencing, the court may consider issuing or extending protective orders — including up to 10 years for specified offenses — and it must, in some circumstances, issue a temporary criminal protective order on release from prison for up to 180 days.
All of these provisions require local operational choices (forms, data entry, monitoring programs) to be made effective in practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The court may issue protective orders against persons other than the defendant (for example, subpoenaed witnesses) that bar communication except through an attorney and that prohibit violating Section 136.1.
Courts must order the relinquishment of firearms under civil-code procedures while a criminal protective order is in effect; possessing or attempting to acquire a firearm during that time is punishable under Penal Code Section 29825.
Courts must transmit certain protective orders to law enforcement within one business day and the Judicial Council must adopt standardized forms approved by the Department of Justice, though nonuse of the forms does not render an order unenforceable.
Electronic monitoring of defendants is permitted only if the county adopts a policy authorizing it, the monitoring may last no more than one year, and the defendant must pay if the court finds an ability to do so (otherwise the local government may pay).
At sentencing for a defined list of serious offenses the court may issue protective orders lasting up to 10 years and must provide a temporary criminal protective order on release from prison that lasts no more than 180 days.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expanded menu of protective orders (including non-defendant restrictions)
This portion authorizes the court to issue a wide range of orders — from Family Code-style no-contact orders to specific prohibitions on violating Section 136.1 — and explicitly allows orders against courtroom attendees who are not defendants (for example, subpoenaed witnesses). Practically, this gives judges express statutory cover to limit third-party communications and to require communications to go through counsel under court-imposed restrictions.
Court-ordered law-enforcement protection with agency consent limits
A court can direct a named local law-enforcement agency to provide protection for victims, witnesses, or their immediate family, but only with the agency’s consent — except for short, specified periods when the court makes an express finding of a clear and present danger. The statute defines immediate family narrowly (spouse, children, parents) and therefore limits which household members receive this ordered protection. This creates a statutory pathway for court-directed security while preserving agency discretion except in acute-risk situations.
Firearm prohibition, forms, and law-enforcement transmission rules
When issuing protection for violent-crime victims the court may bar a defendant from possessing or acquiring firearms and must order relinquishment under Code of Civil Procedure Section 527.9; violations are charged under Penal Code Section 29825. Orders issued under the provision must be transmitted to law enforcement within one business day and entered consistently into the California Restraining and Protective Order System. The Judicial Council must adopt standardized forms and the DOJ must approve them, but the statute makes clear that use of the approved form is not a prerequisite to enforceability — a procedural safeguard with potential evidentiary implications.
Electronic monitoring: county opt-in and payment rules
Electronic monitoring is not mandatory statewide; the statute allows it only when a county adopts a policy authorizing monitoring and designates an agency to run the program. The court can require a defendant to pay if the court finds ability to pay; otherwise the local government that authorized monitoring may cover costs. Monitoring is capped at one year and terminates if the protective order ends. That creates a patchwork model in which access to monitoring — and who pays for it — varies by county.
Precedence, case-marking, coordination protocols, and family-court interface
The bill sets a clear enforcement hierarchy: a more-restrictive emergency protective order can take precedence for those restrictive provisions, but otherwise criminal no-contact orders will have enforcement precedence over civil orders. Courts must mark criminal case records to flag eligible cases and the Judicial Council must promulgate coordination protocols and modify forms so criminal, family, and juvenile courts can share information and avoid contradictory orders. The statute also requires family-court custody or visitation orders to acknowledge criminal protective orders, ensuring the safety-focused criminal order is not inadvertently undermined by subsequent family proceedings.
Post-conviction and sentencing-period protective orders
At sentencing the court shall consider issuing restraining orders that may last up to 10 years for enumerated serious offenses regardless of sentence type (prison, jail, probation, or suspended sentence). When a convicted defendant is incarcerated, the court must issue a temporary criminal protective order upon release protecting the same victims for up to 180 days. The sentencing court retains modification authority during the order’s duration.
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 of domestic violence and other enumerated crimes — receive broader and longer-lasting criminal protective orders, faster law-enforcement notification, and, where available locally, electronic monitoring to reduce contact and risk.
- Percipient witnesses and minors who were present during domestic violence — the bill treats minors present at incidents as having suffered harm and allows courts to protect witnesses from harassment or intimidation.
- Prosecutors and victim advocates — gain statutory tools that make no-contact and firearm-dispossession orders routine parts of criminal cases and provide clearer channels for coordinated enforcement and record-flagging.
Who Bears the Cost
- County governments and local law enforcement — must decide whether to adopt electronic-monitoring programs, potentially absorb monitoring costs when defendants cannot pay, and handle increased duties for protection requests and CRPOS entries.
- Defendants — face mandatory firearm relinquishment while an order is in effect, the risk of additional monitoring conditions, and potential criminal liability under Penal Code Section 29825 for violations.
- Courts and the Judicial Council — must implement new protocols, modify forms, mark criminal records, and coordinate across family, juvenile, and criminal calendars, creating administrative and IT burdens for underfunded court systems.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is safety versus capacity and process: the bill expands judicial power to protect victims and witnesses — including firearm disarmament and electronic supervision — but relies on local governments, courts, and law enforcement to operationalize and fund those protections, pitting the objective of immediate victim safety against uneven local resources, agency consent limits, and procedural safeguards for defendants.
The bill hands judges broad discretionary authority to protect victims and witnesses but leaves significant operational choices to local actors. Law-enforcement protection depends on agency consent except in narrowly defined emergencies; that preserves agency control but risks uneven availability of protective services across jurisdictions.
Electronic monitoring is similarly optional and contingent on county policy, producing a patchwork in which a defendant’s supervision and a victim’s protection depend on local capacity and budget decisions.
Procedural details introduce frictions. The requirement that courts transmit orders to law enforcement within one business day and use Judicial Council/DOJ-approved forms aims to improve enforceability, but the statute also says that nonuse of the approved form does not invalidate an order — which lowers the bar to entry but increases the risk of clerical disputes or challenges about proper notice and scope.
Treating minors present at incidents as harmed witnesses expands protection but raises evidentiary and implementation questions for prosecutors and defense counsel; marking criminal files to flag cases for automatic judicial consideration helps consistency but increases workload and data-sharing that implicates privacy and record-management concerns.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.