Bond Framework

Section summaryBond conditions in stalking cases combine mandatory statutory conditions with discretionary judicial conditions. The magistrate at the initial appearance has broad authority to impose conditions reasonably related to victim safety and court appearance.

Statutory framework:

  • Mandatory conditions: appear, do not commit new offenses, surrender weapons in qualifying cases.
  • Discretionary conditions: GPS monitoring, no-contact orders, residence restrictions, alcohol and drug testing, mental-health evaluation, and others.
  • Authority: magistrate at initial appearance under CCP arts. 17.40 and 17.292; trial court at later hearings.
  • Review: conditions can be modified on motion of either party.
  • Violation: bond revocation and additional charges.

Emergency Protective Orders

Section summaryCCP art. 17.292 authorizes magistrates to issue emergency protective orders at the bond hearing. The order can prohibit contact, exclude the defendant from a residence, and impose firearm restrictions for up to 91 days (longer in some cases).

EPO mechanics:

  • When available: family-violence, sexual-assault, stalking, and trafficking arrests; some categories have mandatory EPO issuance.
  • Duration: 31, 61, or 91 days standard; up to 1 year in cases involving deadly weapons.
  • Contents: prohibitions on contact, exclusion from residence, firearm surrender, prohibition on stalking or threatening.
  • Service: served on defendant; effective on service or earlier on actual notice.
  • Federal Brady consequences: EPO satisfying 18 USC 922(g)(8) criteria triggers federal firearm prohibition.
  • Renewal: separate civil protective-order proceedings (Family Code Title 4) for longer-term protection.

GPS Monitoring

Section summaryCCP art. 17.49 authorizes GPS monitoring as a bond condition. Monitoring can be passive (location logged) or active (real-time alerts to victim if defendant enters exclusion zones). Cost is often borne by the defendant.

GPS monitoring mechanics:

  • Authorization: court order under CCP art. 17.49 in stalking, family-violence, and sexual-assault cases.
  • Equipment: ankle bracelet with cellular reporting; some systems integrate victim notification apps.
  • Exclusion zones: court-defined areas the defendant cannot enter (victim residence, workplace, child's school).
  • Inclusion zones: areas the defendant must remain in (home for curfew compliance).
  • Cost: typically $10-15 per day to the defendant; indigency relief may be available.
  • Violations: produce immediate alerts to law enforcement and may result in bond revocation.

No-Contact Orders

Section summaryNo-contact orders prohibit direct contact, indirect contact, and third-party contact with the victim. Violations are independently charged and can result in bond revocation. Counsel must explain scope carefully to clients.

No-contact scope:

  • Direct contact: in-person, phone, text, email, social media — all prohibited.
  • Indirect contact: through third parties acting at the defendant's direction is also prohibited.
  • Incidental contact: defendant must leave if the victim appears at the same location.
  • Children and shared property: orders may have carve-outs for child-exchange or property retrieval; counsel should request specific carve-outs.
  • Workplace and residence: exclusion zones from victim workplace and residence common.
  • Communication clarification: clients often think text or social media "doesn't count" — it does. Counsel must explain in plain terms.

Firearm Surrender

Section summaryFederal law prohibits firearm possession by persons subject to certain qualifying protective orders (18 USC 922(g)(8)) and by persons convicted of family-violence misdemeanors (18 USC 922(g)(9)). Texas adds state conditions. Surrender procedures and storage are critical.

Firearm-surrender framework:

  • 18 USC 922(g)(8): prohibits firearm possession by persons subject to qualifying protective orders.
  • 18 USC 922(g)(9): prohibits possession by persons convicted of misdemeanor family-violence offense.
  • State conditions: bond conditions and EPOs often require surrender of all firearms.
  • Surrender mechanics: firearms surrendered to law enforcement or qualifying third-party custodian; receipt issued.
  • Storage costs: defendant may bear storage costs at the law-enforcement agency.
  • Restoration: at case conclusion, restoration depends on disposition; conviction of certain offenses produces lifetime federal prohibition.
  • Rahimi context: post-Rahimi (2024), the constitutionality of 922(g)(8) was affirmed; defense theories targeting the statute itself are largely foreclosed.

Modification Petitions

Section summaryBond conditions can be modified on motion. Common modifications include carve-outs for work travel, child contact arrangements, residence access, and GPS removal. Petitions require notice and hearing.

Modification practice:

  • Standing: defendant, prosecutor, victim through her attorney, and pretrial services may petition.
  • Common modifications: work-travel carve-outs, child-exchange procedures, supervised contact, residence retrieval visits, GPS removal after compliance period.
  • Showing required: changed circumstances, victim consent or lack of objection, compliance history, and continued safety.
  • Hearing: notice to the State and to the victim; on-the-record findings.
  • Order specifics: modifications should be written specifically; verbal understandings produce future enforcement disputes.
  • Risk: petitioning can re-open the conditions to additional restrictions if compliance has been imperfect.

Need defense counsel?

L&L Law Group, PLLC handles Stalking and Revenge Porn Defense cases throughout DFW. Initial consultations are free.

Call (972) 370-5060 →

Evidence Types in Stalking Cases

Bond Conditions in Stalking Cases prosecutions rely heavily on electronic evidence: text messages, social-media posts and direct messages, email, location data, surveillance video, and phone records. The defense's foundation work in bond conditions in a stalking case is rigorous review and authentication of every piece of evidence the State intends to use.

Counsel should request preservation letters and discovery for the complete communication record — not just the messages the State has highlighted. Selective excerpts often misrepresent the full course of communication. Where the defendant and complainant exchanged hundreds of messages, the prosecutor's curated selection of 10 to 20 messages may strip away context that supports the defense.

Cell-site location data, third-party application records (Snapchat, Instagram, WhatsApp), and ISP records are all subject to preservation deadlines that run quickly. Counsel should serve preservation letters within days of taking the case, and should issue subpoenas where the defense is entitled to do so. Late-preserved evidence may be permanently lost.

Protective Order Overlap

Bond Conditions in Stalking Cases matters often coincide with civil protective-order proceedings under Texas Family Code Chapter 85 or Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 7B. The protective-order hearing typically occurs within weeks of the filing — long before any criminal case proceeds to trial. The defense's approach to the protective-order hearing affects the criminal case in important ways.

For bond conditions in a stalking case, statements made by the defendant at the protective-order hearing can be used in the criminal case. The protective-order hearing's evidentiary rules are more relaxed than the criminal trial's. The standard of proof is lower (preponderance vs. beyond reasonable doubt). The defendant may face the choice between testifying to defeat the protective order and preserving silence to protect the criminal defense.

Counsel should coordinate the protective-order defense with the criminal defense from the start. In some cases, agreeing to a limited protective order may be preferable to a contested hearing that creates a record harmful to the criminal case. In others, contesting the protective order vigorously may produce a no-finding outcome that supports the criminal defense at trial.

The bond decision in a stalking case and the magistrate considerations

Bond in a stalking case is governed by the general bond framework in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 17.001 through 17.46, supplemented by specific provisions applicable to family violence and stalking cases. Article 17.15 requires the magistrate to consider the nature of the offense, the circumstances of the offense, the bail necessary to secure the defendant appearance, the defendant work record, the defendant family and community ties, the defendant length of residence in the community, the defendant prior criminal record, the defendant conformity with conditions of any prior bond, and the existence of any outstanding bonds.

The magistrate decision in a stalking case is typically more restrictive than in other felony cases of comparable severity because the alleged victim safety is a central concern. Magistrates frequently impose bond amounts in the $25,000 to $100,000 range for base stalking offenses and higher amounts where the conduct involves threats of violence, prior similar conduct, or a defendant with substantial flight or recidivism risk. The bond amount can be revisited through a bail-reduction motion if the initial amount appears excessive relative to the defendant resources and the actual flight or recidivism risk.

The magnitude of the bond is often less significant than the conditions imposed. Conditions in stalking cases typically include no-contact provisions, geographic restrictions, GPS monitoring requirements, firearm surrenders, social media restrictions, and substance-use prohibitions. Each condition carries an independent enforcement risk: violation of any condition can result in bond revocation and pretrial detention. The defense should carefully review the proposed conditions before the bond hearing and contest any conditions that are not necessary for the alleged victim safety or the defendant appearance.

The no-contact provision and the boundaries of compliance

The no-contact provision is the most common bond condition in stalking cases and is also the most frequently litigated. The standard provision prohibits the defendant from contacting the alleged victim directly or indirectly, from going within a specified distance of the alleged victim residence and workplace, and from engaging in any other conduct that could reasonably be perceived as continuing the alleged stalking behavior. The provision is enforced strictly, and violations can produce bond revocation even where the contact was inadvertent or initiated by the alleged victim.

Counsel should walk the client through the specific scope of the no-contact provision and identify the gray areas. A defendant who shares a workplace, school, or social network with the alleged victim must develop specific protocols for managing those overlaps. Indirect contact through mutual friends, family members, or social media platforms can constitute a violation even when the defendant did not directly engage with the alleged victim. A defendant who responds to a message from the alleged victim, even to ask the alleged victim to stop contacting the defendant, can violate the no-contact provision and face bond revocation.

The alleged victim conduct can complicate the compliance analysis but does not excuse the defendant. A defendant who receives unsolicited communications from the alleged victim should document the communications, report them to defense counsel, and avoid any response. Defense counsel should communicate with the prosecutor to address the alleged victim conduct and to clarify the boundaries of the no-contact provision in light of the specific circumstances. A defendant who engages with the alleged victim in response to alleged victim-initiated contact may be technically in violation even where the underlying course of conduct shifted in the alleged victim direction.

GPS monitoring and the technical compliance challenges

GPS monitoring is increasingly common in stalking cases as a bond condition. The defendant is required to wear an ankle monitor that tracks location and provides alerts when the defendant enters prohibited zones around the alleged victim residence and workplace. The monitor is typically provided by a private vendor under contract with the county, and the defendant pays the monitoring costs as part of the bond conditions. The financial burden of GPS monitoring can be substantial, often $300 to $500 per month plus initial setup costs.

GPS monitor alerts can produce bond violation reports even when the defendant did not actually enter a prohibited zone. Signal interference, indoor positioning errors, and equipment malfunctions can produce false alerts that the vendor reports as zone violations. The defense should request the underlying technical data from the vendor when an alert is reported, including the raw GPS coordinates, the signal-strength data, the proximity-zone configuration, and the device diagnostic logs. The technical data can establish whether the alert reflected an actual zone violation or a technical artifact.

Compliance with GPS monitoring requires careful coordination of daily activities. The defendant must keep the monitor charged, must avoid signal-blocking environments such as deep basements and parking garages, and must report any equipment malfunctions immediately. The defendant should maintain a daily log of activities and locations to support any subsequent challenge to alleged violations. The defense should also ensure that the alleged victim residence and workplace addresses on file with the vendor are accurate, because outdated or incorrect addresses can produce zone violations when the defendant is actually nowhere near the alleged victim.

The motion to modify bond conditions and the strategic timing

Bond conditions can be modified through a motion filed with the trial court. The motion should identify the specific condition to be modified, the basis for the modification, and the proposed substitute or replacement condition. The court considers whether the original conditions are excessive relative to the actual risk, whether the conditions have become unworkable due to changed circumstances, and whether the alleged victim safety can be adequately protected with the proposed modification.

The strategic timing of the motion matters. A motion filed too early, before the defendant has accumulated a compliance record, will face a steep climb. A motion filed after several months of demonstrated compliance, supported by documentation of the practical hardship the original conditions impose and the alternative protections the defense is willing to accept, has a much better prospect. The defense should sequence modification requests carefully, addressing the most burdensome conditions first and building toward broader relief through demonstrated reliability.

The prosecutor and the alleged victim positions matter substantially. A motion that is unopposed by the prosecutor and where the alleged victim does not object is almost always granted. A motion that the prosecutor opposes faces a contested hearing in which the court weighs the competing interests. The defense should engage with the prosecutor before filing to identify any modifications the prosecutor would accept, and should engage with the alleged victim through the prosecutor or victim advocate to identify any modifications the alleged victim would accept. A negotiated modification supported by the prosecutor and the alleged victim is granted as a matter of course; a contested modification requires the defense to develop the full record at the hearing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a no-contact order include text messages or social media?
Yes. No-contact orders include all forms of contact: in-person, phone, text, email, social media direct messages, comments on the victim's posts, and contact through third parties. The defendant should treat the victim as completely unreachable. Even a "happy birthday" text or a "like" on a social-media post can produce a violation allegation.
What happens if a victim contacts the defendant first?
The bond conditions bind the defendant, not the victim. A victim's initiation does not relieve the defendant of the prohibition. If the victim contacts the defendant, the defendant should not respond and should immediately notify counsel and document the contact (preserve the message, do not reply). Counsel can then move to modify the order or seek dismissal of any subsequent violation allegation.
Can the defendant get firearms back if the case is dismissed?
Generally yes, but procedures vary. Dismissal of the criminal case typically allows return of surrendered firearms, but a parallel civil protective order may keep the federal prohibition in place. Restoration requires petitioning the agency storing the firearms with proof of dismissal and that no current federal prohibition applies.
Is GPS monitoring required in every stalking case?
No. GPS monitoring is discretionary under CCP art. 17.49. The court considers victim safety, the nature of the conduct, prior history, and the defendant's stability. Defense may oppose monitoring with employment and residence stability evidence, or accept it strategically to support a lower bond amount.
How long do emergency protective orders last?
EPOs issued under CCP art. 17.292 generally last 31, 61, or 91 days. In cases involving a deadly weapon, the EPO can extend up to 1 year. The criminal-case bond conditions continue separately for the duration of the case. Long-term protection requires a separate civil protective-order proceeding under Family Code Title 4.
Part of a larger guide

Read the full Texas Stalking Defense Guide

This article is one section of our comprehensive Texas Stalking Defense Guide. The pillar guide covers recent developments, official resources, and the complete framework with deeper analysis.

Read the Pillar Guide →
⚖️
Texas Bar
Licensed
Bar Nos. 24043266 · 24043514
🏆
40+
Years Combined
Criminal Defense Experience
📞
Free
Consultation
Direct to Attorney
🔓
24/7
Jail Release
Available 7 Days a Week

Next Steps

If you are facing a situation described here, consult counsel promptly. Many issues in this area run on strict deadlines.

Reggie London & Njeri London

Co-Founding Partners · L&L Law Group, PLLC

Reggie London (Tex. Bar #24043514) and Njeri London (Tex. Bar #24043266) co-founded L&L Law Group in Frisco, Texas.

This guide was reviewed by Reggie London on May 30, 2026.

Cite this guide

Bluebook: Reggie London & Njeri London, Bond Conditions in Stalking Cases, L&L Law Group (May 30, 2026), https://landllawgroup.com/insights/bond-conditions-stalking-cases/.

APA: London, R., & London, N. (2026, May 30). Bond Conditions in Stalking Cases. L&L Law Group.