Originally Posted by
100LL
Slightly off topic and asking for a friend. But is it possible to obtain a restraining order intentionally from an entire state essentially being banned from entering said state. He wants to work 135 charter while being banned from NY, MA, NJ, FL, RI, CT, MD, and for some reason KS.
Not a pilot and while I am a lawyer I am not your (or your friends lawyer):
So let’s start with what a restraining order is... A restraining order is an order from the court to not do something otherwise face the penalty and sanctions of contempt. There are a few versions, a civil order is one issued in a purely civil case and can be an order prohibiting say an asset from being sold or something from being purged or deleted. What you’re most likely speaking of is referred to as a “protective” order in some states which is a restraining order to allow protection for a victim of abuse. In some states this is civil and comes with a criminal consequence upon violation and in others it can be civil and criminal (NY can order a criminal order in place for example which can come with additional consequences beyond the contempt finding, such as a parole violation etc).
Judges are required in the case of a protective order to afford the victim suitable protection with the least intrusion upon the liberty of the party being restrained. Since you listed NY I will directly respond to that. Presuming the order is civil then the respondent to the order would have come to court and after hearing evidence the court found there was reason to believe he violated the rights of the petitioner and placed her in fear of imminent harm/stalking behavior. He would restrain the defendant reasonably by say requiring he remain 300 yards, 100 yards or even down to buildings. An excessive order would not stand on appeal, as there can not be a reasonable reason the respondent of the order could not be in say Albany while the petitioner was in Manhattan. Nor could the court order something that would cause economic distress to the respondent unless there is no other way to reasonably assure the petitioners safety. The court does not need to act with particularity in restricting the respondent but it certainly can not be as broad as that. If the order was to be criminal then the defendant in the case would have the ability to have only slightly more restrictive conditions as it can be construed as a punishment in addition to the need for protection. A criminal order has actually gone through a more stringent review and the defendant was found guilty of a crime (such as that of domestic violence) before the order was granted (or made permanent in the case of defendants on release).
Furthermore, if your friend is banned in so many states it is not by order of one judge. He has really crossed some lines (on a multitude of occasions) and should be either receive counseling or talk to a lawyer as state wide bans are not only overly broad but not reasonably actionable. An order in one state which imposes a set of conditions and the petitioner goes on say vacation to Florida from New York carries the same conditions as if she was in New York should the respondent encounter her. This is due to Article IV of the US Constitution and also is codified at 18 USC 2265. There are even provisions for federal punishment for violation as well as interstate stalking.
I would recommend your friend consult with a lawyer if that is accurate because it’s overly broad and creates economic injury. Also they would be better positioned to know modification procedures based on the court in each jurisdiction. I do not practice family law/criminal law, I do however work pro bono on some matters sent over by DV shelters/groups to a group I am involved with.