Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 586-11 (2026)

§ 586-11

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §586-11  Violation of an order for protection.  (a)  Whenever an order for protection is granted pursuant to this chapter, a respondent or person to be restrained who knowingly or intentionally violates the order for protection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.  A person convicted under this section shall be ordered by the court to complete an assessment at any available domestic violence program and shall complete a domestic violence intervention or anger management course as determined by the domestic violence program.  The court additionally shall sentence a person convicted under this section as follows:

     (1)  For a first conviction for violation of the order for protection, the person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum jail sentence of no less than five days and be fined no less than $300 nor more than $500;

          provided that any conviction for violation of a temporary restraining order under section 586-4(e), issued under the same judicial case number as the order for protection, shall be treated as a prior violation of an order for protection; and

     (2)  For the second and any subsequent conviction for violation of the order for protection that occurs after a first conviction for violation of the same order or conviction for a violation of the temporary restraining order under section 586-4(e), issued under the same judicial case number as the order for protection, the person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum jail sentence of no less than forty-five days and be fined no less than $500 nor more than $1,000;

provided that the court shall not sentence a defendant to pay a fine if the court makes an on-the-record determination that the defendant is or will be unable to pay the fine.

     Upon conviction and sentencing of the defendant, the court shall order that the defendant immediately be incarcerated to serve the mandatory minimum sentence imposed; provided that the defendant may be admitted to bail pending appeal pursuant to chapter 804.  The court may stay the imposition of the sentence if special circumstances exist.

     The court may suspend any jail sentence under paragraphs (1) and (2), upon condition that the defendant remain alcohol- and drug-free, conviction-free, and complete court-ordered assessments or intervention.  Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the discretion of the judge to impose additional sanctions authorized in sentencing for a misdemeanor offense.  All remedies for the enforcement of judgments shall apply to this chapter.

     (b)  Any fines collected pursuant to subsection (a) shall be deposited into the spouse and child abuse special account established under section 601-3.6. [L 1982, c 123, pt of §2; am L 1992, c 290, §6; am L 1993, c 229, §1; am L 1999, c 200, §2; am L 2008, c 180, §§2, 6; am L 2009, c 11, §19; am L 2023, c 23, §2; am L 2025, c 121, §2]

 

Case Notes

 

  Hawaii violation for breach of a protective order is not similar to contempt of court for sentencing purposes.  631 F.3d 1021 (2011).

  Family court's dismissal of petition alleging misdemeanor under section upheld where, under §586-6, defendant not personally served with protective order and not present at hearing at which order issued, despite defendant's actual knowledge of order.  72 H. 493, 824 P.2d 106 (1992).

  Allegations in its bill of particulars, to which the State's proof was limited, that defendant argued with wife about visitation at wife's residence, was insufficient to constitute a violation of this section, where order of protection allowed limited contact with defendant's wife for the purpose of visitation.  92 H. 449 (App.), 992 P.2d 718 (1999).

  Pursuant to this chapter, absent special circumstances, the family court should not be involved in any stage of the prosecution of an allegation of a knowing or intentional violation of a protective order by an adult person, including the stage where the allegations are referred to the police or the prosecutor, other than to simply advise interested parties that the proper place to present such allegations is to the police or the prosecutor, not to the family court.  99 H. 363 (App.), 55 P.3d 856 (2002).

  When defendant knowingly contacted wife to discuss a topic other than visitation, defendant violated this section.  105 H. 274 (App.), 96 P.3d 603 (2004).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: State v. PECPEC, 276 P.3d 589 (Haw. 2012).
State v. PECPEC, 276 P.3d 589 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 13× “HRS § 586-11 (a)(1)(A) provides: (a) Whenever an order for protection is granted pursuant to this chapter, a respondent or person to be restrained who knowingly or intentionally violates the order for protection is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
State v. Dudoit, 978 P.2d 700 (Haw. 1999). · cites it 4× “The relevant amendment to HRS § 586-11 provided as follows: (1) For a violation of the order for protection that occurs after a conviction for a violation of the same order, a violator shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum jail sentence of not less than forty-eight hours;…”
State v. Corder, 220 P.3d 1032 (Haw. 2009). · cites it 8× “] HRS § 586-11 (a)(1)(A) (2006). .In his Motion to Dismiss or for Bill of Particulars, Corder details the conduct underlying Count II and Count III and states that such information came from "discovery provided to Defendant by the prosecution.”
State v. Valenzona, 992 P.2d 718 (Haw. App. 1999). · cites it 9× “1 *450 HRS § 586-11 (1993) imposes criminal sanctions for violation of a HRS § 586-5.”
State v. Abregano., 363 P.3d 838 (Haw. 2015). · cites it 5× “Although HRPP Rule 482 requires that a 1 Specifically, Abregano was charged with violating HRS § 586-11 (Supp. 2012) which provides, in relevant part: “When an order for protection is granted pursuant to this chapter, a respondent or person to be restrained who knowingly or…”
Hamilton Ex Rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 270 P.3d 1024 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 5× “) HRS § 586-11 (2006 Repl.) provides in relevant part: § 586-11 Violation of an order for protection.”
State v. Rita, 513 P.3d 437 (Haw. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “On July 9, 2019, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai#i (State) charged Rita via Complaint with Violation of an Order for Protection in violation of HRS § 586-11(a). On 4 Rita appeals from the FOFs/COLs and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, but his Opening Brief does not quote any…”
State v. Medina, 824 P.2d 106 (Haw. 1992). · cites it 8× “On September 4, 1990, the State petitioned the Family Court of the Third Circuit, alleging that by contacting Laminman, Medina had committed a misdemeanor under HRS § 586-11. Despite evidence that Medina had actual knowledge of the order the Family Court dismissed the petition,…”
State v. Sumera, 39 P.3d 557 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 4× “Nine days before sentencing for the first case, Defendant was charged in another case with terroristic threatening in the second degree, HRS §§ 707-715(1) (1993) and 717(1) (1993), 2 and violation of an order for protection, HRS § 586-11 (Supp.2000), 3 (FC-CR *432 No.”
State v. Aki, 77 P.3d 948 (Haw. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “2003), in which the subject offense was violation of an order for protection, a violation of HRS § 586-11 (Supp.2002) (in pertinent part, "a respondent or person to be restrained who knowingly or intentionally violates the order for protection is guilty of a misdemeanor”), id.”
State v. Sugihara, 68 P.3d 635 (Haw. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” HRS § 586-11 (Supp.2002) provides, in relevant part: "Whenever an order for protection is granted pursuant to this chapter, a respondent or person to be restrained who knowingly or intentionally violates the order for protection is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
State v. Swanson, 145 P.3d 886 (Haw. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “j HRS § 586-11(a) (Supp.2005) provides, in pertinent part: (a) Whenever an order for protection is granted pursuant to this chapter, a respondent or person to be restrained who knowingly or intentionally violates the order for protection is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 586-11(a) — 13 cases
State v. Rita, 513 P.3d 437 (Haw. App. 2022). “On July 9, 2019, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai#i (State) charged Rita via Complaint with Violation of an Order for Protection in violation of HRS § 586-11(a). On 4 Rita appeals from the FOFs/COLs and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, but his Opening Brief does not quote any…”
State v. PECPEC, 276 P.3d 589 (Haw. 2012). “HRS § 586-11 (a)(1)(A) provides: (a) Whenever an order for protection is granted pursuant to this chapter, a respondent or person to be restrained who knowingly or intentionally violates the order for protection is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
State v. Swanson, 145 P.3d 886 (Haw. App. 2006). “j HRS § 586-11(a) (Supp.2005) provides, in pertinent part: (a) Whenever an order for protection is granted pursuant to this chapter, a respondent or person to be restrained who knowingly or intentionally violates the order for protection is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
State v. Ryan, 144 P.3d 584 (Haw. App. 2006).
State v. Abregano., 363 P.3d 838 (Haw. 2015). “Although HRPP Rule 482 requires that a 1 Specifically, Abregano was charged with violating HRS § 586-11 (Supp. 2012) which provides, in relevant part: “When an order for protection is granted pursuant to this chapter, a respondent or person to be restrained who knowingly or…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 586-11(a)(1)(A) — 6 cases
State v. PECPEC, 276 P.3d 589 (Haw. 2012). “HRS § 586-11 (a)(1)(A) provides: (a) Whenever an order for protection is granted pursuant to this chapter, a respondent or person to be restrained who knowingly or intentionally violates the order for protection is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
State v. Corder, 220 P.3d 1032 (Haw. 2009). “] HRS § 586-11 (a)(1)(A) (2006). .In his Motion to Dismiss or for Bill of Particulars, Corder details the conduct underlying Count II and Count III and states that such information came from "discovery provided to Defendant by the prosecution.”
State v. Taylor (Haw. App. 2025).
State v. Fernandez (Haw. App. 2026).
State v. Mersberg, 510 P.3d 1130 (Haw. App. 2022).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 586-11(a)(2)(A) — 1 case
State v. Pasion, 518 P.3d 1174 (Haw. App. 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.