Washington Courts: Judicial News Report Detail

Offering Protection from Domestic Violence Across State Lines

Governor Gary Locke signed Senate Bill 5134 into law May 5, a law that offers "full faith and credit" for foreign protection orders against domestic violence. This week, Kitsap County District Court Judge James Riehl will travel to U.S. Justice Department in Washington D.C. with a 20-member national team to discuss how the issue is dealt with in other states.

The 1994 federal Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA) was a bold step - it provided nationwide acknowledgment of local domestic violence protection orders.
Though seen as a pivotal step towards protection of victims of domestic abuse, there was a key flaw--few states were able to comply. It would take state-based legislation to enforce provisions within the federal act.

Following some hard work and a failed attempt in 1998, Washington's Legislature came up with a new law that removes barriers faced by those awarded foreign protection orders.

The new law

One of SB 5134's principal provisions is that a foreign protection order is valid if it "appears authentic on its face". This instant validation is the key to keeping victims safe, says Kitsap County Judge James Riehl, a proponent of local and interjurisdictional cooperation in the handling of DV cases.

"It's a mechanism by which a victim can receive immediate protection, allowing law enforcement to act without wondering how the federal law impacts our (state) requirements."

The law also creates a procedure for filing foreign protection orders--which, Riehl underlines, is not mandatory--with court clerks, statewide.

The procedure provides that when a certified, authenticated copy of an order is presented to the clerk of a court, the clerk is required to file the order without charge, then forward a copy to the county sheriff's department for entry into the department's outstanding warrant database.

"What we found is that people that travel from state to state want immediate protection, and that they don't want to have to necessarily register (or reapply for) it," said Riehl. "This gives law enforcement the nuts and bolts to deal with a significant issue."

Registration not a necessity

One issue of debate raised by the new law was whether victims would be required to register the order before it could be enforced.

"We were able to convince them that jeopardized their safety. Once you file a register for enforcement, you really put a number of people on notice, including the perpetrator," Riehl explained. "It's pretty remarkable what lengths a perpetrator will go to track down a victim."

Because Washington courts require notification of the originating court that the protection order is now on file, perpetrators could find out where the victim had relocated, Riehl said.

"Fortunately, the model code does not require registration. It allows for it, but does not require it for those victims that are deathly afraid," he said.

Further, perpetrators are put on notice in the originating state that the order is enforceable throughout the country. "It's really a dual protection, the immediate protection by law enforcement, and eventually the penalties through criminal prosecution."

System changes

The new law becomes effective July 25 and will make marked improvements in the system. Without the legislation, Riehl says victims who moved away from the state of the originating order may have found themselves impacted on several levels.

"If they were in fact contacted by the perpetrator, law enforcement would respond initially, but if there was no violence that committed within the last four hours, they did not feel they had the right to enforce an order that the victim may show from another state," said Riehl. Often, victims were told they had to go to court locally and obtain a new order.

"Due to current state law, the court was required to make certain findings about violence occurring here in Washington. The victim would not be able to say there is a pattern here, and often they were told, unfortunately, that they would have to return to the originating state to enforce the order, which is totally contrary to the federal act."

SB5134 also includes orders issued by tribal courts. "You can imagine what a local police officer in a small city might do if the victim showed him an order out of the tribal court," he commented. "The likelihood of that officer enforcing it was pretty small."

Legislative resistance

The first round of legislation was drafted in 1997 with assistance by more than 50 individuals, including tribal court representatives, and the state-level team made up of Riehl, Mary Pontarolo of the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Pam Loginsky, then a Kitsap County deputy prosecutor, and former Thurston County Prosecutor Bernardean Broadous.

But that legislation failed to get approval in the '98 session. "It took a couple of years, but I think that is not particularly unusual," Riehl told Judicial News. "Usually, the responding state is a little uncomfortable about dealing with matters originating elsewhere."

Considerable testimony was needed the second time around to ensure legislators the law would be implemented fairly.

"There was some resistance because of legislators who would think of exceptions that may result in some inequitable treatment to individuals unfortunately these were one-in-a-million exceptions they were discussing," he explained.

Riehl says some legislators need more education on the realities of DV.

"We needed to educate legislators that it is not an accident that a perpetrator from Florida ends up in Washington, and just happens' to be in the same place that the victim is living statistics show there was a purpose for that--to try to continue to control the victim"

Strong leadership by Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Guy, Riehl said, made the legislation a much easier sell its second time around.

"It sends a very large message to the community, to victims, to perpetrators, that this state is taking a stance to say, we are not going to tolerate this kind of behavior.'"

National follow-up

To track changes that have resulted throughout the country, the American Bar Association recently appointed Riehl as an advisor to the U.S. Commission for Uniform State Laws, which began work on a nationwide model for enforcement of interstate domestic violence orders. A first reading of the draft model code is expected in July of this year in Denver.

Riehl will also travel this week with a 20-member team to Washington D.C. this week to consult with the U.S. Justice Department's "State Focus Project." The department is in charge of enforcing and monitoring the VAWA.

"They are looking for some feedback from states as to how the federal act is impacting the states - what works, what doesn't work, what changes would be recommended," Riehl said.

At last count, more than 30 states have enacted legislation that contains most of language in Washington's new law.

For further information on the Violence Against Women Act online, visit http://www.usdoj.gov/vawo/