You have the sole responsibility to avoid or refrain from violating the order's provisions. Only the court can change the order. The validity of a protective order is an implicit element of the crime of violation of such order. Notwithstanding Marking's failure to challenge the order in district court, the State bore the burden at trial of proving the validity of the order beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the determinative issue here is not the validity of the order per se, but rather whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was valid.
Due process requires the government to prove every element of a charged offense.
Due process also requires the government to provide fair warning that the charged act constitutes a crime. Additionally, absent the existence of ambiguity, this court ascertains the meaning of a statute from its language alone. The policy underlying the statute supports this reading. The consent warning serves an important function in deterring individuals from violating the order. Absent the warning, one might mistakenly believe that consent to contact by the person protected under the order invalidates the order's otherwise mandatory prohibition.