Peer comparison · hearing and findings
How other jurisdictions handle the hearing
Iowa’s criminal no-contact order can run the life of the case and then five years with no hearing on the order and, after State v. Hall, no written findings beyond the conviction. This page puts that next to peer approaches already documented on this site, plus Massachusetts’ official temporary-order statute. England is labeled England — not a U.S. state.
Iowa’s gap, in one paragraph
Under § 664A.3, a criminal no-contact order may issue at initial appearance and lasts the life of the case. Under § 664A.5, a post-conviction order may run up to five years. State v. Hall (Iowa May 22, 2026, unanimous) holds that the five-year order needs no additional findings beyond conviction, deferred judgment, or plea, and that notice plus the sentencing hearing satisfies due process. There is no statutory return hearing on the pretrial order with the State carrying the burden. Bond review is not that hearing. Chapter 236’s civil temporary order does set a hearing window (5–15 days) — the criminal chapter does not borrow it.
Comparison
| Jurisdiction | Trigger | Hearing timing | Who bears burden | Findings for long orders | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iowa (criminal) | No-contact order at initial appearance (§ 664A.3); post-conviction order (§ 664A.5) | No hearing on the pretrial order itself. Sentencing hearing exists for the five-year order. | Extension under § 664A.8: defendant must prove he no longer poses a threat (Vance / Huber / Huffer line). | Hall: no additional findings required beyond conviction / deferred judgment / plea. | § 664A.3; § 664A.5; Hall |
| Connecticut (criminal protective order) | Criminal protective order at arraignment | On request, a hearing within a reasonable time on whether the order must continue (Fernando A.). | State must prove continued necessity by a preponderance. | Continuation turns on proof at that hearing, not a silent roll-forward. | State v. Fernando A., 294 Conn. 1 (2009) — holding confirmed on this site (secondary brief/summary; re-read before brief use) |
| New York (arraignment eviction) | Arraignment order that evicts the defendant from a home | Prompt evidentiary hearing required (Crawford v. Ally). | Evidentiary hearing on the eviction order; court reached merits after charges dismissed. | Addresses prompt process when housing is taken; not Iowa’s five-year § 664A.5 findings question. | Matter of Crawford v. Ally (2021 NY Slip Op 03841) |
| Massachusetts (civil 209A temporary) | Temporary abuse-prevention order under G.L. c. 209A | Statute: hearing on the order and other requested relief no later than ten court business days after temporary orders enter (§ 4). | Continuation hearing must allow witnesses and cross-examination (C.O. v. M.M.). Ex parte duration also capped by Guideline 1:02 (ten court days absent proof of notice) as described on the authorities page. | Civil temporary regime — not a criminal five-year NCO — but the fixed short return is the model the Iowa bill borrows for timing. | Mass. G.L. c. 209A § 4; C.O. v. M.M. |
| Wisconsin (ex parte home exclusion, as applied) | Ex parte domestic-abuse order excluding a co-owner from home | Blazel: constitutional only with verified petition alleging imminent harm, judicial review, and a prompt hearing. Unconstitutional as applied when no imminent danger was alleged. | Federal as-applied holding; saved the statute by reading those conditions in. | Focus is ex parte entry conditions and prompt hearing — not Iowa’s post-conviction five-year findings rule. | Blazel v. Bradley, 698 F. Supp. 756 (W.D. Wis. 1988) |
| England (Family Division — not a U.S. state) | Without-notice (ex parte) family injunction / protective order | Return day should normally be no more than 14 days. Order must never issue without a time limit. | Order must recite that only the applicant’s evidence was heard and that no finding of fact was made. | Recital is the opposite of a silent long order: no finding yet, short return. | Practice Guidance, 18 January 2017 (official PDF) |
What the Iowa draft borrows
- Division III (14-day hearing, State’s burden) — Connecticut Fernando A. and England’s fourteen-day return. See model bill § 664A.3A drafting note and cheapest lever item on the criminal hearing.
- Division IV (30-day pretrial cap) — fixed short life until a contested hearing; England’s time-limit rule and the Massachusetts ten-day temporary window as timing peers. Civil Iowa already uses 5–15 days under § 236.4.
- Division II (written findings before a five-year order) — answers Hall directly. Peers above mostly address prompt hearings; they do not invent a substitute for legislative findings language.
- Division V (candor recital) — England’s “only the applicant’s evidence / no finding yet” recital.
Model bill Cheapest lever Iowa scorecard Authorities Take action