New Frontiers of Stalking Video Voyeurism

Transcription

1 S t a l k i n g r e s o u r c e c e n t e r New Frontiers of Stalking Video Voyeurism Imagine yourself alone in your bedroom. Your door is shut. Your curtains are drawn. From the corner of your eye, you notice what appears to be a tiny flaw in the picture displayed on the wall. You move closer to investigate only to discover the small speck on the painting is a microchip camera and microphone. Frightened, you call the police. You soon learn that the camera is connected to your estranged husband's VCR and he has been watching and listening to you for weeks. This story is not a scene from a horror movie. This was the very real experience of a woman from New Jersey who found herself being stalked by her estranged husband, with whom she was still sharing her home. With the advent of new technology and affordable, easy-to-obtain, and increasingly harder to detect video surveillance equipment, voyeurism has taken on a new character. Stalkers are finding ways to use the new technology to monitor their victim's movements. (Continued on page 2) Stalking Resource Center's Information Clearinghouse Index Now Online The Stalking Resource Center's mission is to raise national awareness about stalking and to foster the creation of multidisciplinary responses to the issue. A vital element of this initiative is the collection and dissemination of resources on stalking. We have been working hard over the past two years to locate and obtain the best resources to support practitioners in the field. At this moment, our extensive collection exceeds 400 different items, ranging from print resources of various kinds (books, brochures, articles, etc.), to slides (Power Point presentations) and videos. Some of the materials are general in nature, while others are specific. For example, we have books in our Clearinghouse that would be of interest to the general public and victims of stalking, but we also have print resources that are specific to different disciplines, such as victim advocates, law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, campus administrators, and others. In January 2003, we are launching a searchable index of all of these documents on our website at src. This means that you will be able to (Continued on page 11) Newsletter of the Stalking Resource Center Volume 3, Number 1 Winter 2003 Stalking Resource Center Staff: Tracy Bahm Director Matt Markon Program Attorney Becky Hoey Program Attorney Anton Popic Crime Victim Resource Specialist Jen McLish Program Assistant - Susan Herman Executive Director National Center for Victims of Crime Michael Kaiser Director of Special Projects In This Issue Video Voyeurism (page 1) Information Clearinghouse (page 1) DVERT in Colorado Springs, CO (page 4) Legislative Update (page 6) New Staff (page 6) Intimate Partner Stalking Conference (page 7) Stalking on Campus (page 8) Case Law Update (page 10) Why Focus on Stalking? (page 11) This document was developed under grant number 98-WE-VX-K008 from the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) of the U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions and views expressed in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice.

2 Page 2 Stalking Resource Center Newsletter Video Voyeurism (Continued from page 1) Video voyeurism, the use of small micro cameras to observe and monitor another person, introduces a new aspect to traditional voyeurism behaviors such as peeping and spying. Any person can visit their local electronic store or the internet and purchase this low cost equipment. Since these cameras are surreptitiously used to video tape, the victims of this surveillance may often be unaware that they are being watched. This practice brings new challenges to the idea of personal privacy and what it means to be safe from view. While the activities of stalking and video voyeurism seem related, the exact relationship remains unclear. Stalkers are using this technology, but can the use of this technology alone be considered a form of stalking? States are reviewing the relationship between video voyeurism and stalking and the legality of video voyeurism and responding in many different ways. Some states have separate video voyeurism laws while others address this behavior within the context of their stalking statute. Regardless of whether this is an act of stalking or a tool used by stalkers, one thing is clear: this technology exists and unsuspecting people are finding themselves victims. In the New Jersey case described above, the woman had filed for and been granted a Final Restraining Order by the family division of the Superior Court. 1 One of the court's reasons for granting this order was a finding that the husband's placement of the camera in his estranged wife's bedroom was an act of stalking. The court ruled that this was a sufficient basis upon which a final restraining order could be granted. The husband appealed this decision on several grounds. First, he argued that there was insufficient evidence that he placed the camera in the bedroom. Then, he argued that even if he had placed the camera there, it was not stalking. He claimed that because his wife was not aware of the camera, it could not have caused her fear, as required in the statute. Third, he argued that the mere placement of a camera could not constitute a "course of conduct" as required by the stalking statute. The court found strong circumstantial evidence of the husband's responsibility for the placement of the camera. The court further found that it was irrelevant whether the target was aware of the conduct as it occurred or whether it was discovered after the fact. They ruled that based on the placement of the surveillance camera in her bedroom, any person who discovered such a surveillance device would reasonably feel fearful. Finally, the court reasoned that because the wife's behavior was monitored on numerous occasions, a course of conduct did exist. In light of the above arguments, the appeals court affirmed the lower court's grant of a final restraining order. This case was then appealed to the New Jersey State Supreme Court who heard oral arguments on the issues on November 7, An opinion is expected in the near future. As awareness of stalking increases and laws are tested in the courts, states are reexamining their existing stalking laws and deciding what behaviors are already covered and how improvements may be made to criminalize video voyeurism behaviors and better protect stalking victims. Some states have chosen to draft laws which specifically address the use of video cameras to secretly tape someone. 2 Other states have language within their stalking statutes that specifically mention surveillance as an act of stalking or harassment. 3 Video voyeurism brings new challenges to the idea of personal privacy and what it means to be safe from view. Many voyeurism statutes that directly address the use of video also include similar elements, such as secretly videotaping another without their consent, or intentional surveillance in a place where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. States have labeled these statutes with various titles including, Unlawful Photographing, Voyeurism, Unauthorized Videotaping, Eavesdropping, Peeping or Spying, and Disorderly Conduct. 4 As the titles of these statutes suggest, states are using different legal theories to criminalize this behavior. Since it is difficult for the law to keep pace with advances in technology, it is unclear whether these current laws alone will address the issues presented by emerging technology. Additionally, courts may be asked to interpret the meanings of these laws and to decide on some difficult issues. One potential problem with some statutes is the inclusion of language requiring that the victim have a "reasonable expectation

3 Volume 3, Number 1 Page 3 of privacy" in the place where he or she is being watched. When the taping occurs in a bathroom or in someone's home, this reasonable expectation of privacy will generally not be an issue. The expectation of privacy becomes less clear, however, when someone is in a public area such as a shopping mall or a park. Some states have chosen to eliminate the expectation of privacy language altogether. For instance, in Illinois it is now unlawful to videotape another without their consent in various places such as restrooms, tanning beds, changing rooms, hotel bedrooms, and their homes. Regardless of whether any particular state's stalking statute addresses video voyeurism, investigators and practitioners must be aware of this practice and remain on the cutting edge of this and other new technologies to best protect stalking victims. The public needs to be better educated about this behavior so it can be detected and stopped. Video voyeurism is a serious and dangerous phenomenon. If your community is currently working on these issues, or would like assistance with regard to this or any other stalking matter, please contact the Stalking Resource Center by phone at or by at src@ncvc.org. 1. H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 793 A.2d 780 (N.J. Ct. App. 2002). 2. See, California, Cal. Penal Code 647 (2002), Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/26-4 (2002), Kansas, K.S.A (2001), Louisiana, La. R. S. 14:284 (2002), Ohio, ORC Ann (2002), Tennessee, Tenn. Code Ann (2001), Virginia, Va. Code Ann (2002), Washington, Rev. Code Wash. 9A (2002), Wisconsin, Wis. Stat (2001). 3. See, Arizona, A.R.S. 13_2921 (2001), Colorado, C.R.S Video voyeurism can be a way that a stalker keeps tabs on his victims, however, it is also being used in ways that we do not typically consider stalking. Consider "upskirting." In upskirting, small video cameras are used in an effort to film unsuspecting women from below their skirts and dresses. These cameras can be concealed within shopping bags, backpacks, on shoes, or in any location where it is possible to view women from beneath their dresses. Common locations for this form of voyeurism include escalators in public places, outdoor parks, and shopping malls. A recent example of upskirting occurred when a woman attending an outdoor food festival in Seattle, Washington, discovered that the man standing behind her in a line was videotaping images from beneath her skirt. Police found the images of that woman as well as other women and children on the videotape taken from the suspect's camcorder. These voyeurs often post the images on Internet web sites. Many victims of "upskirting" are unaware of the fact that someone has captured their image and is distributing it on the Internet. Because upskirting activities commonly occur in a "public" location, the question of whether the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that public place is often debated by lawmakers. In the Seattle upskirting case, the Washington State Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the man caught taping and stated that the language of the Washington voyeurism statute did not cover an expectation of (2001), Georgia, O.C.G.A (2001), Hawaii, HRS (2001) and South Carolina, S.C. Code Ann (2001). 4. See, Tenn. Code Ann Is It Stalking? privacy in a public place, such as this outdoor food festival. (Washington v. Glas, Washington v. Sorrells, 54 P.3d 147 (2002)). In response to the Court's ruling, the city of Seattle passed an ordinance making it illegal to film or photograph under someone's clothing in a public place. The question of whether this form of voyeurism is criminal behavior is being considered by many states. Stalking is typically defined as a pattern of conduct directed at a specific person. Often in upskirting cases, the perpetrator is not targeting any specific person but is recording the person who is most readily available. Additionally, these activities may not be considered a pattern of conduct as it relates to one person. For these reasons, upskirting behavior is likely not criminalized by stalking statutes, but may be criminalized by other laws. The Stalking Resource Center has received a number of technical assistance requests which concern upskirting and other similar behaviors. While it does not fit the definition of stalking in most jurisdictions, we are concerned because it is obviously highly intrusive behavior that traumatizes its victims. If you or your community is working on these issues, we would like to receive your feedback. Has any court in your jurisdiction ruled upskirting or similar acts to be stalking? Do you think it is stalking? Voice your opinion on our web poll at src and also see what your colleagues think. We are very interested to hear your view on this. (2001), Ohio, Washington, Illinois, Kansas, K.S.A (2001), Va. Code Ann (2002), La. R. S. 14:284 (2002), and California.

4 Page 4 Stalking Resource Center Newsletter WHAT IS DVERT? Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT) is a multidisciplinary program based in Colorado Springs, Colorado that addresses serious domestic violence cases. These cases are referred to DVERT from any one of partnering agencies. Following a referral, the DVERT team meets to determine whether a case warrants the full use of the team's resources. If the team decides to take the case, DVERT takes over all aspects of the case, including investigation and advocacy services. The team covers two jurisdictions, with a population of approximately 600,000. It has been in existence since 1996, and sprang out of the Minneapolis project, a National Institute of Justice funded study researching the impact of law enforcement agencies making arrests in domestic violence cases. Colorado Springs was one of six sites chosen to replicate the project. Over time, it became apparent that looking at law enforcement response was not sufficient and that other parts of the criminal justice and victim assistance systems needed to be brought to the table. Now, some 10 years after the original project, DVERT in Colorado Springs boasts 36 agencies. Agencies range from law enforcement and prosecutors' offices to social service agencies and animal abuse programs. DVERT has an annual budget of $1.8 million, half of which comes from grants and the rest from contributions made by the partnering agencies. We recently spoke to Mr. Howard Black, the Executive Director of DVERT, who shed some light on the workings, advantages, and difficulties of running a multidisciplinary response program on domestic violence, which includes intimate partner stalking. Stalking: A Multidisciplinary Approach DVERT, Colorado Springs How did you get all of your partnering agencies to come to the table and how do you keep them there? Colorado Springs is a collaborative community. We've been working with one another for many years. Do we have issues? Absolutely. I think what was helpful for us was starting small, beginning with three agencies, then developing into having 36 partnering agencies. When we first started DVERT, we started with the District Attorney's office, the Colorado Springs Police Department, and T.E.S.S.A. (Trust Education Safety Support Action), our partnering advocacy program. From there, and over the last six years, we've just continued to bring people on. I hope it continues to be that kind of an evolution of the program. Are there any disciplines not included in DVERT that you would like to see there? Yes. There are lots of disciplines that are still not included. There are clinical folks that I'd like to see us deal with, and we still need to take a look at more alcohol and drug related issues and treatment programs. Also, there are still some school districts we'd like to include. Are judges or the court system involved in DVERT in any way? Yes they are. We work with the court, especially when we are dealing with custody issues and issues surrounding the safety of children. In those cases, we are more proactive in dealing with the courts, making sure that they have good information in order to make good decisions. How do cases come to your attention? They come to us through the referral process. We are totally driven by it and approximately 95 percent of cases come in from referrals. The referral forms come in from multiple sources. They can come from law enforcement, prosecution, advocacy, and other agencies and individuals who come into contact with domestic violence victims and offenders. We get copies of every arrest document that is generated, and Many stalking cases are, quite frankly, easily put together. People make stalking out to be more difficult to investigate and prosecute than it should be. we have our crime analyst who actually reviews those cases for lethality as they come in. The cases referred to us are, for the most part, based on lethality. The people referring cases do it because they think that the victim is in danger. We have also had some victims who have self-referred through our crisis line. How many cases does DVERT handle in an average year? That's a complicated question because we have five different programmatic areas within DVERT. When we're looking at the most intensive case load,

5 Volume 3, Number 1 Page 5 we do about 500 cases a year. We expect to handle at least 200 stalking cases in In our community, there are between 15,000 and 20,000 domestic violence calls each year and approximately 3,500 arrests each year. One has to be careful when one does the math on domestic violence cases. Sometimes the offender has multiple cases. For example, 500 cases could mean 700 arrests. We are working on a case right now where we have 47 violations of a restraining order, so those are actually 47 separate arrests. Now, of course, we'll collapse those into one felony charge. How many of your domestic violence cases have a stalking component? If you look at the Colorado stalking statute, you see that it's an easy statute to work from. I'd say that at least 50 percent of our cases have the potential of having a stalking component attached to it. Are stalking cases more difficult to handle than domestic violence cases that don't involve stalking? Yes and no. Sometimes the stalking cases can be very difficult. In some cases, we may have a suspect who is of high lethality. In these cases, we may choose an intervention that includes surveillance. Many stalking cases are, quite frankly, easily put together. People make stalking more difficult to investigate and prosecute than it should be. Many of these stalking cases are right here in front of us; they're already done. For instance, if there are multiple violations of a restraining order, it is easy to pull all violations together and develop a stalking case, at least in Colorado. What is the biggest obstacle to dealing with stalking cases? Resources. It is quite difficult for uniformed officers to recognize the pattern of behavior in a stalking case. The problem is the lack of time. They are dealing with what is in front of them when they respond to a call, and if it is a violation of a protective order they deal with that and then have to move on to the other 25 calls. Does DVERT respond to postincarceration threats to stalking victims? Absolutely. Probation is one of our partners, and we work extensively with them. On a weekly basis a probation officer and a detective go out visiting clients, and any of the more serious stalking cases we have are placed with our probation officer. We also file charges when a suspect violates a restraining order by contacting the victim while that suspect is incarcerated. Do you ever close out a case or do cases simply go to a sleep mode? Cases are very fluid. Once a case becomes a DVERT case, the activity of the case depends on the threat level. We try to get containment around the perpetrator, and programs and safety planning around the victim and the children. Our advocates stay in contact with victims and if the advocate reports back that the victim is feeling some level of safety, that the offender hasn't been in contact with her for a reasonable amount of time, and that the children aren't at risk, then we close that case. We make those decisions from a multidisciplinary perspective. Has DVERT been evaluated in any way? Do you have any information about victim satisfaction with your work? There have been 11 independent research projects completed on DVERT. One of the projects looked at a sample of victims and found a high level of victim satisfaction in dealing with the police and the advocates at DVERT. Then, we also had a sample looking at recidivism rates in our most intensive case load. Do you offer help for communities that want to start similar coordinated responses? Absolutely! In fact, we invite site visits into Colorado Springs. Last year we averaged about 2.5 visits a month. We have had communities come from all over the United States and the world, including China and Thailand. Has DVERT been replicated in other communities? Yes. There are about DVERTs in the country. They all look different. What advice would you offer those communities that would like to establish a similar multidisciplinary program? Start small, and then grow. Multidisciplinary work groups are difficult because one is dealing with work cultures that are quite different from one another. But it is also very rewarding because we are truly making a difference: a difference in the system, and above all, in individual lives. It is great to see victims making choices that are healthy choices for them, not necessarily for us. I can't imagine working domestic violence cases today and not having a multidisciplinary response. When you bring systems together you are looking at domestic violence cases from all different perspectives. Everyone has a valuable perspective on how to move forward with a case. Multiplicity of perspectives does nothing but enhance the response and empower victims.

6 California Page 6 Stalking Resource Center Newsletter SB 1320, signed by Governor Gray Davis on September 23, 2002, clarifies the definition of stalking to require that conduct which constitutes harassment be willful and malicious. The definition of course of conduct was modified to require a minimum of two acts, instead of a series of acts, to establish a pattern of conduct. Additionally, the new law eliminates the requirement that the harassing conduct be such as would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress, as well as the requirement that the conduct does in fact cause such distress. In separate legislation, AB 2030, enacted September 27, 2002, the charging of fees for service of process of a protection order based on stalking and for filing a subpoena in connection with the application for stalking orders was prohibited. Connecticut On October 1, 2002, SB 334 took effect enhancing the classification for a criminal violation of a stalking protective order from a class A misdemeanor to a class D felony. Delaware Delaware legislators enacted the Uniform Interstate Enforcement of Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act, HB 315, on July 8, This bill requires the courts to enforce the terms of any validly issued out of state protection order, and directs law enforcement officers to enforce foreign orders when they have probable cause to believe that such an order has been Legislative Update violated. Illinois HB 4081, enacted on August 22, 2002, expands the stalking statute to protect former stalking victims from subsequent repeat stalking incidents by the same offender. Under the provisions of the new law, a person who was previously convicted of stalking commits a new stalking offense when he or she knowingly and without lawful justification stalks the same victim again on another single occasion. Missouri SB 969, signed by Governor Bob Holden on July 10, 2002, broadens the state's stalking statute to include conduct and threats that are communicated through electronic means. The legislation creates a new first degree invasion of privacy crime and expands the definition of invasion of privacy in the second degree to include elements of video voyeurism. Additionally, the law establishes the Missouri Regional Computer Forensics Lab to prevent and reduce computer, internet and other electronically based crimes. North Carolina & Oklahoma Legislators in North Carolina and Oklahoma enacted new laws establishing Address Confidentiality Programs that allow stalking victims to file an application with state government agencies to keep their addresses confidential. Stalking victims may apply for these programs regardless of whether the stalking acts have been reported to law enforcement by providing the state with proof that they are a victim of stalking. NC HB 1402 was signed by Governor Mike Easley on October 31, 2002, and OK HB 2921 became effective November 1, National Center for Victims of Crime operates a toll-free Helpline for crime victims. Our trained staff can help victims: understand more about the impact of stalking make a safety plan learn their legal rights and options connect with direct victim service providers pursue civil lawsuits access victim compensation Victims can obtain help by calling FYI-CALL (TTY ) or ing at gethelp@ncvc.org Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 8:30 pm EST Stalking Resource Center Welcomes New Staff The Stalking Resource Center continues to grow, with the addition of two new staff members. Becky Hoey joined our team on October 1, 2002, as a program attorney. Becky is a recent graduate of American University Law School. She will be working to keep all of our legislative information current, as well as expanding our legal services to include case law analysis. Jen McLish joined our team on October 9, 2002, as a program assistant. Jen is a graduate of the University of Minnesota, and has a served as an advocate for both domestic violence and sexual assault survivors, both during and after college. Jen will be focusing her efforts on campus responses to stalking as well as helping to develop materials useful for advocacy agencies and task forces working on stalking.

7 Intimate Partner Stalking: Keeping Victims Safe & Holding Offenders Accountable A Conference for Grantees of the Office on Violence Against Women March 10-12, 2003 Proposed Topics Include: Domestic Violence and Stalking The Use of Technology to Stalk Coordinating Your Response Lethality of Stalking Stalking in Communities of Color Invited Speakers Include: Mark Wynn David Adams Cindy Southworth George Wattendorf and many more national experts FREE REGISTRATION AND OPEN ONLY TO OVW GRANTEES! REGISTRATION DEADLINE IS FEBRUARY 10, SPACE IS LIMITED, SO REGISTER EARLY! Memphis Marriott Downtown 3 Blocks from Beale Street! Special Conference Rate: only $75/night FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO REGISTER, CONTACT JEN McLISH AT , HER AT JMcLISH@NCVC.ORG, OR LOG ON TO Stalking Resource Center 2000 M Street NW Suite 480 Washington, DC Phone: Fax: src@ncvc.org

8 Page 8 Stalking Resource Center Newsletter Fear on Campus: The Problem and Prevalence of Stalking Stalking on college campuses is occurring at an alarming rate and it now appears that college students are at greater risk of being stalked than other populations. According to the most recent National Sexual Victimization of College Women Survey, more than one in eight, or 13 percent, of female college students surveyed had been stalked within a six- to nine-month period. 1 This rate compares with the estimated one in twelve women and one in forty-five men who will be stalked in their lifetime. 2 Why College Campuses? Campus Stalking, a report published by the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA), underscores aspects of campus life that increase the risk of stalking. 3 For example, college campuses generally offer an open atmosphere that is very appealing for students, many of whom are living likely for the first time without direct parental supervision. College buildings and residence halls provide relatively easy access to virtually anyone who wishes to enter the premises. Students tend to follow predictable schedules, attending classes and eating meals at the same time each day, week after week. These same features, ironically, increase the risk for stalking behavior. Campus stalkers can easily familiarize themselves with a student s comings and goings and campus buildings that don t have 24-hour security provide stalkers with physical proximity to their victims. The numerous social opportunities college campuses provide and, in fact, many boast provide another risk factor that makes students more vulnerable to stalking. Many college students are at a point in their lives where dating and seeking romance become more important to them. Many intimate relationships are newly formed on college campuses. It s well established that most female victims are stalked by current or former intimate partners such as dating partners, spouses, or cohabiting partners. 4 What was viewed initially by college students as positive, romantic attention, may turn into the repeated unwanted attention, harassment, and contact that characterizes stalking. Low Reporting Rates Compounding the problem of stalking on college campuses is the shockingly low reporting rate among students. The National Sexual Victimization of College Women Survey found that 83 percent of students who were stalked did not notify the campus police or other school authorities. 5 The two main reasons students gave for not reporting the crime were that students either thought the police would not take the stalking seriously or that they were not aware that the unwanted behavior was a crime. One College Takes on Stalking After a review of the victimization of college women study, Edgewood College in Madison, Wisconsin, conducted their own survey to gauge the prevalence of stalking on their campus. What they found was that their own survey mirrored the national statistics. In November 2002, Edgewood College, coordinated a comprehensive training and planning program for participants that represented a broad cross section of the college community. Conducted on-site by the Stalking Resource Center over a two-and-a-halfday period, the multifaceted program was designed to raise awareness of stalking on campus and to create a forum for discussion on how Edgewood can effectively respond to victims. Numerous student peer educators participated in a training session that provided general background on stalking and specific methods for supporting stalking victims. A similar training was provided for first responders including staff and resident assistants. Representatives from student health and campus counseling services participated in brainstorming sessions to generate ideas on establishing a support group for the survivors of stalking. The program concluded with a roundtable discussion on the establishment of a multidisciplinary response to stalking at Edgewood College. Participants included the Dean of Students and staff from the offices of Health and Safety, Health Services, Security, and Residence Life. This meeting laid the foundation for Edgewood s unique

9 Volume 3, Number 1 Page 9 response to stalking. Colleges Uniquely Positioned to Address Stalking Of the estimated 9,653 colleges and universities throughout the United States, relatively few have taken affirmative steps to support stalking victims on their campuses. 6 College campuses, however, are in a unique position to support victims. For example, many universities and colleges have counseling centers already in place. Additional training for campus counselors to support stalking victims can be done easily. Campus security is available and often located on the college grounds. When a report is made, or incident occurs, campus police can easily take the victim to the college health or counseling center. This contrasts with many law enforcement agencies who would have to transport the victim often miles to a completely separate victim agency. On college campuses, the security, the counseling center, the health center as well as other centers, are all parts of the same organization rather than separate entities. When a campus adopts a stalking protocol, all agencies within the college community can respond in unison. Outside the university setting, the different service providers are often separate organizations each with their own different and often conflicting policies and protocol. Universities can provide the victim with one, unified, multidisciplinary response all coordinated together through one central organizational structure, all located in the same location. When a victim resides on campus, these services are also all located where the victim resides providing unparalleled access. Additionally, many colleges already have policies regarding sexual assault, which can provide a solid foundation from which to build an effective response to stalking. With all these advantages, college campuses can address stalking in many unique and creative ways Bonnie Fisher, Francis T. Cullen, and Michael G. Turner, (2000). Sexual Victimization of College Women, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC. 2. Tjaden, Patricia, and Nancy Thoennes. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 3. Kirkland, Connie J., (2002). Campus Stalking. California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA), Sacramento, CA. 4. Fisher et. al at p IBID at Brown, Patricia Q., (2001). Institution in the United States: , , US Department of Education, National Center for Education. Upcoming Conferences Intimate Partner Stalking: Keeping Victims Safe and Holding Offenders Accountable Memphis, TN March 10-12, 2003 Contact: Jen McLish JMcLish@ncvc.org website: Phone: (202) Kentucky's 2003 Victim Assistance Conference Lexington, Kentucky March 18-20, 2003 Contact: Denise Hancock Phone: (502) International Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence and Stalking Conference San Diego, CA April 23-25, 2003 Contact: ann2215@aol.com website: phone: (858) Institute on Immigration for Survivors, Serving Survivors of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking through LAV Program May 19-20, 2003 Contact: Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence Phone: (800) ext. 3 Questions, comments, or suggestions regarding this newsletter? We welcome your input! us at src@ncvc.org

10 Page 10 Stalking Resource Center Newsletter New Jersey v. Reyes, 796 A.2d 879 (NJ 2002) The New Jersey State Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the intermediate appellate court, holding that New Jersey courts had jurisdiction under the state s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act to issue a final restraining order to a victim of domestic violence who has sought shelter in New Jersey from violence committed outside the state. In this case, the defendant slapped the victim, his wife, in the face at their home in New York. She then fled to her sister s apartment in New Jersey. That evening, the defendant followed the victim to New Jersey, repeatedly knocking on the apartment door and ringing the doorbell, conduct which constitutes harassment under New Jersey law. The victim applied for and was issued a temporary restraining order barring the defendant from her sister s apartment in New Jersey. The order also prohibited him from returning to the scene of the violence, from future acts of domestic violence, and from stalking, following or having any form of contact with the victim or her sister. Case Law Update Subsequently, on two occasions the defendant violated the temporary restraining order by returning to the victim s sister s apartment and attempting to communicate with the victim. In addition, at a hearing to determine whether a final restraining order should be issued, the defendant approached the victim again, asking her to withdraw the complaint. The court issued a final restraining order to the victim solely on the basis of the assault committed in New York. Because the trial court limited its findings only to the New York assault and not the defendant s subsequent harassment of the victim in New Jersey, the appellate court held that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the final restraining order. The State Supreme Court determined that the court did have jurisdiction. Not only did the defendant s harassing conduct constitute an act of domestic violence in New Jersey, the plain language of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act grants New Jersey courts the authority to protect domestic violence victims who seek shelter within the state. The defendant s pursuit of the victim after she sought refuge in New Jersey authorized the trial court to assert jurisdiction and issue injunctive relief against him. Oregon v. Souders, 46 P.3d 729 (OR 2002) The Supreme Court of Oregon held that the stalking protective order issued against the defendant under the civil antistalking statute, ORS , was valid. In this case, the defendant repeatedly followed the victim. She became fearful because of her increased contacts with the defendant and sought a stalking protective order. The defendant made various state and federal constitutional arguments. He also argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish all of the elements required to obtain a stalking protective order. The court dismissed all of the defendant's claims. Specifically, they held that a civil statute cannot be challenged on vagueness grounds under the state Constitution. The court also dismissed the defendant's Due Process arguments, stating that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the terms of the Stalking Protective Order Statute (contacts, alarms and personal safety) are vague in all of their applications. The court stated that a person of ordinary intelligence would have a reasonable opportunity to know what kinds of contact are prohibited by this statute. Finally, the court held there was no evidence to support the defendant's proposition that a stalking protective order violated his Constitutional right to travel freely. Pennsylvania v. Giusto, 2002 Pa. Super. 319 The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the trial court s ruling and held that Pennsylvania may assert jurisdiction over the criminal offense of stalking when one of the series of stalking acts occurs within the state and when that stalking act completes a course of conduct for purposes of the stalking statute. The defendant was charged with two counts of stalking after he threatened the victim, his ex-wife, in order to gain access to her apartment in Pennsylvania so that he could rape her. Prior to the commission of this crime, he had followed the victim for six years in Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire. The trial court ruled that acts occurring in other states could not be considered to establish the course of conduct required under Pennsylvania s stalking law and dismissed the charges. The appellate court determined that, under Pennsylvania law, criminal jurisdiction is conferred upon Pennsylvania courts because the stalking act which occurred in Pennsylvania caused a result, a "course of conduct," which was an element of the crime of stalking. Pennsylvania courts can assert jurisdiction where part of the course of conduct occurs in another state and causes a result within Pennsylvania. For more cases like these, please visit our website ( and click on Caselaw Update!

11 Volume 3, Number 1 Page 11 From the Desk of the Director: Why Focus On Stalking? When I tell people what my job is, I often get comments of surprise that there is a resource center focused solely on stalking. Most people are not aware of the prevalence of stalking, unless they have either been stalked or know someone who has. Even professionals who work closely with the largest population of stalking victims battered women are sometimes surprised to find that they have been working with stalking victims. They have seen the course of conduct, they have heard about the threats, and they have observed the fear in the victim. They just didn t name it what it is: stalking. It is estimated that 1,006,970 women and men are stalked every year. Stalking often terrorizes a victim to the point of having to make major life changes or decisions to protect him or herself, such as moving to a new town and/or buying a weapon to protect against harm from his or her stalker. One study found that 76 percent of women killed by their intimate partners were stalked prior to their death. 1 So, we know that stalking occurs at a significant and alarming rate. We know that it has a large impact on the victims. And we know that it is a warning sign of potential homicide. Yet, for the most part, we lump it together with other domestic violence behaviors and assume we are adequately serving stalking victims with our domestic violence programs. But, do these programs do enough to specifically look for stalking behaviors, or to adapt our responses specifically to stalking victims? We need to start taking a closer look at stalking, both in connection with domestic violence (where it is most prevalent) and as a stand-alone topic. The issues faced by intimate partner stalking victims are not necessarily the same as those faced by intimate partner violence victims who are not stalked. The issues faced by stalking victims who have not had a previous relationship with their stalker are likely to be even more different. All of these victims certainly need safety and support, but the safety plans and support groups must be tailored for the victim s needs. The stalking victim usually carries a heavier burden in both his or her safety and in the offender s accountability than most other crime victims. In many jurisdictions stalking is still not a behavior that provides a basis for a protective order. Also, as the individual incidents of stalking often do not constitute criminal behavior, it is the victim who must log the incidents to show the pattern, forcing victims to become their own investigators. The bottom line is that we have enough research and practical experience now to know that stalking is not a minor crime. It is frightening and dangerous, and we have to work harder to ensure that our responses to stalking reflect that understanding. There are many great domestic violence programs that can easily enhance their efforts to create safety and security for stalking victims. And, there are some great stalking programs already emerging. If we can help you improve your response to stalking, please don t hesitate to contact us. Tracy Bahm - 1. Statistics are taken from Tjaden & Thoennes, National Violence Against Women Survey, 1998, and McFarlane, et al., Stalking and Intimate Partner Femicide, Both studies are available on our website ( Information Clearinghouse (Continued from page 1) search our index from your computer using several categories. These categories are: JURISDICTION: This category allows to search for material that is specific to your jurisdiction (i.e., a police protocol for a specific department in your state), or to select "general" to search for material or a document not specific to any locality. FOCUS: This category includes an array of topics, such as advocacy, campus, cyberstalking, domestic violence, law enforcement, and prosecution. TYPE: Refers to the nature of the content (i.e., incident log, investigative strategies, protocol, research, statute, training materials, and victim assistance). FORMAT: book, brochure, other print materials, slides, video, website. While the entire Clearinghouse index will be available online, only a small portion of the materials are currently available for you to download on your own computer. You can obtain the rest by contacting us through the website. In the case of books and videos that are not available for distribution, we can preview them for you and give you a review to help you decide if it might be a worthwhile investment for you. If you or your agency have developed any new materials that are not included in our Information Clearinghouse, please let us know about it, so we can share those resources with others. It is our hope that by bringing our Information Clearinghouse closer to you online we can better assist you in your work. Please visit our website and look for this new and exciting addition to our website.

12 Intimate Partner Stalking: Keeping Victims Safe and Holding Offenders Accountable March 10-12, 2003 Memphis, TN A Conference for Grantees of the Office on Violence Against Women Presented by the Stalking Resource Center & the Battered Women s Justice Project For more information see page 7 of this Newsletter! Stalking Resource Center 2000 M Street, NW, Suite 480 Washington, DC First Class U.S. Postage PAID Fort Worth, TX Permit No Tel Fax src@ncvc.org