Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 664A.7 (2026)

Violation of no-contact order or protective order — contempt or simple misdemeanor penalties

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Violation of a no-contact order issued under this chapter or a protective order issued pursuant to chapter 232, 235F, 236, 236A, or 598, including a modified no-contact order, is punishable by summary contempt proceedings.

2. A hearing in a contempt proceeding brought pursuant to this section shall be held not less than five and not more than fifteen days after the issuance of a rule to show cause, as determined by the court.

3. If convicted of or held in contempt for a violation of a no-contact order or a modified no-contact order for a public offense referred to in section 664A.2, subsection 1, or held in contempt of a no-contact order issued during a contempt proceeding brought pursuant to section 236.11 or 236A.12, the person shall be confined in the county jail for a minimum of seven days. A jail sentence imposed pursuant to this subsection shall be served on consecutive days. No portion of the mandatory minimum term of confinement imposed by this subsection shall be deferred or suspended. A deferred judgment, deferred sentence, or suspended sentence shall not be entered for a violation of a no-contact order, modified no-contact order, or protective order and the court shall not impose a fine in lieu of the minimum sentence, although a fine may be imposed in addition to the minimum sentence.

4. If convicted or held in contempt for a violation of a civil protective order referred to in section 664A.2, the person shall serve a jail sentence. A jail sentence imposed pursuant to this subsection shall be served on consecutive days. A person who is convicted of or held in contempt for a violation of a protective order referred to in section 664A.2 may be ordered by the court to pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and court costs.

5. Violation of a no-contact order entered for the offense or alleged offense of domestic abuse assault in violation of section 708.2A or for the offense or alleged offense of older individual assault in violation of section 708.2D, or a violation of a protective order issued pursuant to chapter 232, 235F, 236, 236A, 598, or 915 constitutes a public offense and is\n\nTue Dec 09 21:57:45 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 664A (26, 0) §664A.7, NO-CONTACT ORDERS — ENFORCEMENT OF PROTECTIVE ORDERS 4\n\npunishable as a simple misdemeanor. Alternatively, the court may hold a person in contempt of court for such a violation, as provided in subsection 3.

6. A person shall not be held in contempt or convicted of violations under multiple no-contact orders, protective orders, or consent agreements, for the same set of facts and circumstances that constitute a single violation. 2006 Acts, ch 1101, §11; 2007 Acts, ch 180, §9, 10; 2014 Acts, ch 1107, §26; 2017 Acts, ch 121, §32; 2022 Acts, ch 1132, §14; 2023 Acts, ch 66, §148 Referred to in §598.41, 598C.305, 664A.2, 907.3 \n

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2013–2026 · leading case: State v. Ramos, 2013 NMSC 031 (N.M. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Ramos, 2013 NMSC 031 (N.M. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 31-15-5-1 (2003); Iowa Code Ann. § 664A.7 (2007); La. Rev. Stat.”

Ballstaedt v. Curtis (In re Ballstaedt), 500 B.R. 586 (Bankr. D. Iowa 2013). “Although it arises from a proceeding for a civil injunction under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1502(1), functionally, it is the equivalent of a restraining order designed to prevent domestic violence.”

State v. Morgan (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 11× “" Entries 55 and 57 cited Iowa Code § 664A.7 and described the convictions as "Contempt—Violation of a No Contact Order or Protective Order.”

Troy Daniel Dowell v. State of Iowa, 922 N.W.2d 104 (Iowa Ct. App. 2018). “It is also significant that violations of a no-contact order issued under chapter 664A are not remedied through any criminal sanctions which flow directly from the original criminal proceeding's sentencing order, but instead are limited to separate summary contempt proceedings…”

State v. Ramos, 2013 NMSC 31 (N.M. 2013). “§ 31-15-5-1 (2003); Iowa Code Ann. § 664A.7 (2007); La. Rev. Stat.”

Joshua McDonald v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2022). “See Iowa Code § 664A.7(5) (“Violation of a no-contact order entered for the offense or alleged offense of domestic abuse assault in violation of section 708.”

Jennifer Lee Blackwood f/k/a Jennifer Lee Knop v. Brock Allen Knop (Iowa Ct. App. 2023). “Iowa Code § 664A.7(5). “Alternatively, the court may hold a person in contempt of court for such a violation .”

McCleary v. Nelmark (D. Mont. 2024). “On October 20, 2022, Judge Nelmark issued an order on the Applications finding McCleary guilty of one count of contempt of court, pursuant to Iowa Code § 664A.7. At McCleary’s request, Judge Nelmark scheduled a sentencing hearing for November 2, 2022.”

Schley v. Sioux Cnty. (Iowa Ct. App. 2024). “See Iowa Code § 664A.7(1) (“Violation of a no-contact order issued under this chapter .”

Lonnie Kay Milbrath v. Iowa Dist. Court for Boone Cnty. (Iowa Ct. App. 2026). “Iowa Code § 664A.7. The party alleging contempt has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged contemner willfully failed to perform a duty imposed by a court order.”

Joshua Close v. City of Bellevue Iowa (8th Cir. 2026). “But the remedy for noncompliance is against the individual who violates it, see Iowa Code § 664A.7 (allowing contempt sanctions), not the officers who enforce it, see Shumate, 846 N.”

State v. Ramos (N.M. 2013). “§ 31-15-5-1 (2003); Iowa Code Ann. § 664A.7 (2007); La. Rev. Stat.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Iowa Code § 664A.7(1) — 1 case

Schley v. Sioux Cnty. (Iowa Ct. App. 2024). “See Iowa Code § 664A.7(1) (“Violation of a no-contact order issued under this chapter .”

— Iowa Code § 664A.7(5) — 3 cases

State v. Morgan (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “" Entries 55 and 57 cited Iowa Code § 664A.7 and described the convictions as "Contempt—Violation of a No Contact Order or Protective Order.”

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.