Stalking (Includes Cyberstalking) Protection Order, House Bill 2464 Report
Stalking (Includes Cyberstalking) Protection Order, House Bill 2464 Report
Stalking (Includes Cyberstalking) Protection Order, House Bill 2464 Report
HB 2464
As Reported by House Committee On:
Judiciary
Title: An act relating to stalking protection orders.
Brief Description: Enacting the stalking protection order act.
Sponsors: Representatives Goodman, Rodne, Pedersen, Pearson, Hurst, Darneille, Kelley,
Fagan and Dahlquist; by request of Attorney General.
Brief History:
Committee Activity:
Judiciary: 1/26/12, 1/30/12 [DPS].
Brief Summary of Substitute Bill
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative
members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it
constitute a statement of legislative intent.
House Bill Report HB 2464 - 1 -
grant an ex parte temporary protection order and, upon a full hearing, a final order that lasts
for a fixed term or, in some cases, is permanent.
Domestic violence protection orders are available to those who have suffered physical
harm, bodily injury, assault, the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, sexual
assault, or stalking by a family or household member. These orders may last for a
fixed time or be permanent, but if a respondent is restrained from contacting his or
her minor children, an order must last for a fixed time of no longer than one year.
Antiharassment protection orders are available to those who have been seriously
alarmed, annoyed, or harassed by conduct which serves no legitimate or lawful
purpose. The petitioner does not need to establish that they have any sort of special
relationship with the respondent. These orders last a maximum of one year unless the
court finds that the respondent is likely to resume the harassment once the order
expires, in which case the duration can be for some other fixed time or permanent.
Sexual assault protection orders are available to victims of nonconsensual sexual
conduct or penetration that gives rise to a reasonable fear of future dangerous acts.
These orders provide a remedy for victims of sexual assault who do not qualify for a
domestic violence order of protection. Orders will last for a fixed time not to exceed
two years.
Vulnerable adult protection orders protect adults with mental or physical disabilities
who are victimized through abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or the threat
thereof. These orders last for a fixed time not to exceed five years.
Additionally, courts may issue no-contact orders to protect victims during the pendency of
criminal proceedings, and these orders may also be imposed or extended as a condition of
release or sentence. No-contact orders may be issued before, after, or concurrently with civil
protection orders, and they automatically expire at arraignment (unless extended or reissued),
upon dismissal or acquittal, or upon termination of the sentence or elimination of that
condition of the sentence. No-contact orders associated with criminal sexual assault
proceedings may last up to two years following imprisonment or community supervision.
Civil protection orders and criminal no-contact orders prohibit contact of any kind with the
victim and forbid the respondent from being within a specified distance of a petitioner's
residence or workplace. They also commonly involve a surrender of firearms. Generally,
violation of a protection order or no-contact order is a gross misdemeanor. However, a
violation of some protection orders may be a class C felony under certain circumstances,
such as if the person violating the order has two prior violation convictions or if the violation
involved an assault or reckless endangerment. Antiharassment protection order violations do
not elevate to a class C felony.
Many protection orders follow the jurisdiction requirements for domestic violence protection
orders. Superior, district, and municipal courts all have jurisdiction to issue domestic
violence protection orders. However, jurisdiction is limited to the superior court under some
circumstances, such as when there is a family law action involving the parties that is pending
in superior court.
Stalking.
Stalking, as defined in statute, is intentionally and repeatedly harassing or repeatedly
following another person, placing that person in fear that the stalker intends to injure them,
House Bill Report HB 2464 - 2 -
another person, or their or someone else's property. The fear must be reasonable under the
circumstances, and the stalker either must intend to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person,
or must know or reasonably should know that their conduct would elicit such a reaction.
Stalking is generally a gross misdemeanor, but under certain circumstances it is a class C
felony.
Victims of stalking may pursue an antiharassment protection order. Some victims of stalking
also have grounds to petition for a domestic violence protection order, but only if they have a
family or dating relationship with the person who is stalking them.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Preliminary fiscal note available.
Effective Date of Substitute Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of the
session in which the bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In support) Stranger stalking is a unique situation and we do not have adequate tools to
protect stranger stalking victims. The vast majority of stalking victims are family and can
obtain a domestic violence order. For stranger stalking, however, there is no appropriate
order other than an antiharrassment order.
Antiharassment orders are woefully inadequate and we are currently failing to protect
stalking victims with these orders. The consequences of violation of an order need to fit the
seriousness of why the order was placed. Antiharassment orders cannot be issued as a
condition of sentence and violation of one of these orders is never a felony. There is no
aggravating factor for antiharassment orders, and violations do not factor into an offender
score. There is no mandatory arrest and this is something all other orders have. The conduct
is not specifically labeled, so most looking at a conviction record assume that these are for
neighbor disputes. A "stalking protection order" would be very meaningful.
There are only a small number of stalking victims, but for that number this order could be the
difference between life and death. There are cases in which people have been murdered by
stalkers in spite of having an antiharassment order. The system needs a stalking protection
order to identify stalking behavior and raise the seriousness of this behavior. If judges had
this order as a tool and could use Global Positioning System monitoring, some of these tragic
cases could be avoided. Our laws must ensure victims of stalking have ways of protecting
themselves from being victims of something far worse.
Few people are aware of cyberstalking behavior, but it is a problem. Cyberstalking poses a
unique problem necessitating enforcement across state lines, and it needs to be addressed and
enforced by law enforcement.
(Opposed) There is a problem with the definitional section of this bill. Those who are
victims of "stalking conduct" qualify for the stalking protection order. "Stalking conduct" is
satisfied if there is a willful course of conduct involving repeated contact that would cause a
reasonable person to feel harassed. "Harassment" is defined as a knowing and willful course
of conduct which seriously harasses. There is no way to tell these apart, so there is a risk that
all of the people filing for antiharassment petitions are simply going to migrate over to
stalking petitions. There will not be any better tools for law enforcement to know which
cases are more serious.
House Bill Report HB 2464 - 6 -
There is another remedy available for stalking victims. It is unclear how someone who is
willing to violate an antiharassment order will follow a stalking order. The problem is with
law enforcement not taking this seriously.
Persons Testifying: (In support) Representative Goodman, prime sponsor; Chris Johnson
and Tracy Bahm, Office of the Attorney General; Ken Paulson; Nancy Heisler; Cindy
Paulson; David Martin, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; Alex Warhese,
King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office; and Marta Lyall.
(Opposed) Kim Prochnau, Superior Court Judges Association; James McMhan, Washington
Association of County Officials; and Erin Curtis, Washington Association of Defense
Lawyers.
Persons Signed In To Testify But Not Testifying: None.
House Bill Report HB 2464 - 7 -