Case Summaries: Stalking - Protection Orders

Striff v. Striff

No. WD-02-031 (Wood, 6th Dist., 2/21/03)  Affirmed continuation of stalking CPO terms--i.e., no contact with petitioner, and only able to call petitioner regarding an emergency with their minor children. Regardless of defendants intent, and although defendant had no physical altercations with petitioner since the granting of the CPO, defendant still violated CPO by continuing to call petitioner and going to her home.

Keywords: civil protection order,violation,enforcement

Date: 1/12/2004

City of Toledo v. Emery

No. L-99-1067 and L-99-1155 (Lucas, 6th Dist., 06/30/00): Protective order for menacing by stalking issued against appellant was violated when he continued to videotape complainant and her family although it constituted only part of the original stalking behavior of appellant that triggered the issuance of the protective order; evidence of videotaping was admissible to show that appellants behavior could be perceived by jury as stalking; pattern of conduct refers to two or more incidents closely related in time, whether or not there has been a prior conviction.

Keywords: protection order

Date: 4/23/2002

Spence v. Herbert

(Licking, 5th Dist., 7/30/01), No. 006A93, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3431: Stalking CPO should only have been issued for the mother and not for the child, as his relationship with the father was described as "great" and problems only occurred when the parents were together.

Keywords:

Date: 4/17/2002

Short v. Walker

No. CA2000-08-009 (Preble, 12th Dist., 01/16/01): Appellants previous pattern of conduct including threats of physical harm, continuing harassing behavior, and blatant unwillingness to leave appellee alone was sufficient evidence for trial court to issue and continue a stalking civil protection order; could be reasonably inferred that appellee and her husband were afraid that appellant would physically harm them.

Keywords: stalking acts, stalking incidents, protection order

Date: 4/17/2002