Attorney reviewed by Mark Blair, a Washington attorney and co-founder of Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC. Last updated August 27, 2026.
A Washington no-contact order binds the person it restrains regardless of what the protected person wants on any given day. Division One made that concrete on August 24, 2026, affirming a felony conviction where the restrained person argued he was only at the protected person's home because she asked him to be, and because staying away would have left her without help she needed.
Neither argument is a defense. A protected person cannot waive, suspend, or modify a no-contact order by invitation, and Washington does not recognize a good-reason exception for violating one. In State v. Miller, the court held the defendant was not entitled to a necessity defense and affirmed his conviction, resting on a rule the law has stated the same way for decades. Only a court can change a no-contact order.
What a No-Contact Order Actually Is
A no-contact order is a court order that prohibits the restrained person from contacting or coming near a protected person, entered in a criminal case and enforced by criminal penalties for any violation. It is different from a civil protection order a person petitions for, though the two often exist over the same people at the same time, and our page on the difference between civil orders and no-contact orders walks through where they diverge.
Violating one is a crime under RCW 7.105.450. Most violations are gross misdemeanors. The charge becomes a class C felony under RCW 7.105.450(5) when the person already has at least two prior convictions for violating a qualifying order, which is how the defendant in Miller ended up facing a felony rather than a misdemeanor.
The Order Said 1,000 Feet, and He Was in the Apartment
The defendant in Miller was subject to a no-contact order keeping him at least 1,000 feet from the protected person, with whom he had four children. He was found in her apartment, and a jury convicted him of both felony and misdemeanor violation of a court order.
His explanation was that the protected person had asked him to be there that night, in part to help with her anxiety, and that a neighbor's ongoing harassment gave him no reasonable alternative. He asked the trial court to let him argue necessity to the jury. The court refused, and Division One affirmed that refusal.
The criminal defense attorneys at Blair Kim Moeller see this fact pattern often in King and Pierce County no-contact cases, because the restrained person genuinely believes an invitation changes the legal picture. It does not, and understanding why is the difference between a defense and a guilty plea.
Only a Court Can Lift a No-Contact Order
The rule that decided Miller is that a protected person's consent does not modify a no-contact order. The Washington Supreme Court held in State v. Dejarlais that permitting a protected person to authorize contact the order forbids would undermine the order itself, so the invitation carries no legal weight against a violation charge.
That is deliberate. A no-contact order is entered to protect a person the court has found to be at risk, and letting the same person waive it informally would let pressure, reconciliation, or a hard night erase a court's protection without any court involvement. If the order no longer fits the situation, the path is a motion to modify or terminate it, decided by a judge, not a text message saying it is fine to come over.
For the restrained person, the practical rule is short. Until a court changes the order, the order means exactly what it says, and being welcomed back is not a defense to being there.
If you are facing a violation charge and believe the contact was invited or could not be avoided, an attorney can tell you what actually counts as a defense before you decide how to respond.
Necessity Is Not a Way Around It Either
Washington does allow a narrow necessity defense in some situations, but it has four demanding elements: the harm avoided must outweigh the harm of breaking the law, there must be no reasonable legal alternative, the person must reasonably believe the act was necessary, and the person must not have created the situation. A violation of a no-contact order rarely satisfies them, and it did not in Miller.
The court pointed to reasonable legal alternatives the defendant had not exhausted, including seeking an anti-harassment protection order against the neighbor he blamed and pursuing the problem through the building's management or longer-term measures. It also relied on the Legislature's own finding, in RCW 7.105.900, that protection orders are essential tools for keeping people safe, and on State v. Yelovich, where the Supreme Court declined to create a competing exception because a bright-line rule keeps protected people from wondering whether prohibited conduct might later be excused.
None of this means a person accused of violating an order is without options. It means the defense is built on the facts of the alleged contact, the terms of the order, and the State's proof, not on the protected person's after-the-fact permission.
Talk to a Seattle No-Contact Order Attorney
Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC represents both petitioners and respondents in protection order matters and defends the criminal charges that follow a violation, across King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. Mark Blair, a former deputy prosecuting attorney, handles no-contact order violation defense and the motions to modify or terminate an order that are the lawful way to change it. Contact our office at (206) 622-6562 or schedule a consultation.
