A bill that would offer greater protections for stalking victims will not get a full hearing by the Legislature after an intense lobbying campaign by state judges.
Rep. Roger Goodman, D-Kirkland, said that shortly after he introduced House Bill 2464 he was inundated by negative comments from superior- and district-court judges, as well as their lobbyists.
The measure, which would have allowed victims to petition the courts for a stalking-protection order, needed to pass out of the House Government Appropriations and Oversight Committee by last Friday, but it was not brought up for a vote, Goodman said.
The legislation was intended to help victims like Jennifer Paulson, who was fatally shot outside Tacoma’s Birney Elementary School in 2010 by a man who stalked her for years.
Supporters argue that the state needs to offer stronger legal protections to those victims who don’t have a dating or family relationship with their stalkers. Paulson and her stalker – who was later killed exchanging fire with a Pierce County Sheriff’s deputy – were only acquaintances.
King County Superior Court Judge Laura Inveen, who is president of the state Superior Court Judges’ Association, said victims can get the protections they need under civil anti-harassment orders that are already available.
She said her organization was concerned that the proposal would push cases now being handled in municipal and district courts – where anti-harassment orders are filed – into the already overloaded superior-court system.
Under the bill, requests for stalking protection orders would be filed in superior court. Also, fees would be waived for the orders, unlike anti-harassment petitions.
“There is a concern that a lot of people who were going to anti-harassments would migrate to stalking,” Inveen said. “The litigant might want to take it into Superior Court because it (the case) wouldn’t have a filing fee.”
Goodman said the judges also argued that a stalking protection order would require more time to handle because the stakes for violating one would be higher, including jail time.
“There is more due process required,” he said. “The consequences are more serious.”
Goodman disputes the argument that an anti-harassment order – a type of legal remedy offered to squabbling neighbors or disputes over pets – can provide adequate protection to stalking victims.
“No one takes anti-harassment orders seriously because they end up being neighbors arguing over property or a nuisance rather than true, dangerous threats,” he said.
Under the legislation, police would immediately arrest a person found to be in violation of a stalking protection order. Police are not required to arrest someone suspected of violating a civil anti-harassment order.
Rather than create a new order, Inveen said the state should revamp what types of cases anti-harassment orders address so it is not used in petty disputes.
“What has happened is the anti-harassment legislation has morphed into a legislation where people are using it how it was never intended,” she said. “It was for the serious conduct. The concern (has been) adopting another statute rather than fixing the current legislation.”
Information from The News Tribune archives was used in this story.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.