Article by Erik Smith. Published on Friday, January 06, 2012 EST.
Attorney General Hopes to Create a New Type of Protective Order – Would Plug Gap in Law
Left to right, Cindy and Kent Paulson, Attorney General Rob McKenna, Tracy Lundeen, and David Martin.
By Erik Smith
Staff writer/ Washington State Wire
OLYMPIA, Jan. 6.—Attorney General Rob McKenna is making stalking his top priority for the 2012 legislative session, urging the Legislature to pass a measure that would allow courts to issue protective orders with teeth in cases that now fall through the cracks.
While a court order may not be enough to deter the most determined stalkers, McKenna said the stiff penalties may be enough to make them think before they act. The proposal also would make it easier for police and prosecutors to charge them with a crime if they violate the decrees.
“They are not foolproof,” McKenna said. “There are no guarantees in life. But we know that more people will be thinking twice about violating a protection order with serious consequences than one that really doesn’t have those consequences attached, so we improve the odds significantly in favor of the victim by having this tool available.”
McKenna announced the effort at a Thursday news conference, flanked by parents of a young woman who was murdered by a stalker nearly two years ago, and another who said she has lived her life in terror because state law is inadequate to the task. Right now the courts can issue protective orders in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault, allowing prosecutors to charge violators with felonies. But a gap exists in the law for about one-third of stalking cases, McKenna said, where there is no relationship between the stalker and the victim. In those cases the victims may obtain anti-harassment orders, but violations are misdemeanors.
McKenna’s proposal would allow courts to issue anti-stalking orders with the same types of penalties as in the domestic violence and sexual assault cases. Prosecutors would be allowed to ask for electronic GPS monitoring when defendants are released pending trial. Penalties for felony stalking also would be increased.
The stalking victims offered sometimes tearful testimony about how the harassment affected their lives.
An Act of Kindness
Ken Paulson, whose daughter was killed by a man who had stalked her for years, fought to choke back tears as he told of the case. “I want the next father to be able to walk his daughter down the aisle. I want the next father to be able to hold the children of his daughter. I want the next father to be able to read a book about his daughter, not because she was murdered like my daughter, but more importantly I want that daughter to live a long life. We all want that. I want the next father to be able to have his daughter bury him at the end of his life, instead of the father burying his daughter.”
Paulson’s daughter Jennifer, a special education teacher, was fatally shot outside the Tacoma school where she worked. Her stalker had been released on a misdemeanor charge of violating an anti-harassment order shortly before the killing, and he was later killed in a gun battle with a sheriff’s deputy.
Meanwhile, Tracy Lundeen told of years of harassment from a young man she helped with homework at age 13. “We didn’t know each other, we weren’t friends, and our contact was brief. This small act of kindness has led to 19 years of stalking, harassment and fear for me and my family.”
He was imprisoned initially not for the stalking but for the death threats he made against public officials who tried to enforce the anti-harassment orders.
Most States Allow Stalking Orders
Dave Martin, an attorney in the King County prosecutor’s office, said current anti-harassment orders are not strong enough to deal with stalking cases. “Prosecutors and police are asked by their victims what can we do to make it stop. If the stalking involves domestic violence from a partner or a family or a household member, there are a lot of things that prosecutors or law enforcement can do. Thanks to Attorney General McKenna and the Domestic Violence Task Force, we now have strong protections, strong no-contact orders, strong protection orders, enhanced and aggravated sentences for recidivists, new laws to protect domestic violence victims. However, if the stalker is a stranger or just an aquaintance, then the law treats those cases very differently.
“Over 25 states afford stalking victims strong legal protection with stalking protection orders. Washington is not one of them. Washington has aggravated factors for many other types of crimes, but we do not have it for stalking and that needs to change. Everyone deserves a life free from terror, a life free from fear, a life free from violence. We see victims suffer from that every day. Victims of stalking should receive the same protections as victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.”
Public Records and Hospitals
McKenna, with state Auditor Brian Sonntag, also is proposing a measure that would allow public agencies to voluntarily record private executive sessions. The records would not be disclosable under the state’s public records act, but they would allow public agencies to refute charges that they had violated it. In 2008, they proposed mandatory recording of non-public meetings, but heavy opposition came from government agencies that feared they would be required to disclose the records.
Another McKenna measure would require pre-filing notice before a malpractice claim can be filed against a publicly funded hospital. Such requirements exist for private hospitals. Pre-filing requirements would allow public hospitals to investigate and settle claims before they go to court. The University of Washington medical center finds that claims that go to court typically cost five times more to settle than claims that are settled before that point, McKenna said.Your support matters.
Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.
