Commanders possess broad but not unlimited authority to issue no-contact orders under their inherent responsibility to maintain good order and discipline. These military protective orders (MPOs) must be reasonable in scope, duration, and tailored to legitimate military interests such as protecting alleged victims, preserving evidence, or preventing witness interference. Orders cannot be punitive in nature or effectively impose pretrial punishment. They must serve preventive rather than punitive purposes.
Constitutional limitations require that orders not unnecessarily restrict fundamental rights including family association, religious exercise, or access to legal services. Blanket prohibitions on all base access or contact with entire units rarely survive scrutiny. Orders should specify prohibited contact types, protected parties, and geographical limitations. Duration must be reasonable, with periodic review required. Indefinite orders lasting throughout lengthy proceedings may violate due process.
Violations of lawful no-contact orders can result in Article 92 charges, but the underlying order must be valid. Accused members can challenge overbroad orders through defense counsel, seeking modification or rescission. Military judges can review orders for reasonableness during pretrial motions. Commands must balance protection needs against the accused’s rights, particularly regarding contact with family members or presence at shared workplaces. Enforcement should be consistent and documented, avoiding appearance of pretrial punishment or command prejudice against accused members.