When is it OK to go to the police for "small" violations of DVRO

[angel_mom]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi, I had a 3-year DVRO granted recently against my ex-husband for harassment. He is mentally unstable and is the kind of person who will just keep pushing the rules until something big happens (maybe even after that). So far, in the 3 weeks since the DVRO, he has called my phone once (said it was a pocket dial) and followed me on a social network (which is creepy and violates the ban on indirect contact). My lawyer sent letters about these but did not advise me to call the police on either. I don't think my ex even read the DVRO, after my lawyer warned him these were violations he called my lawyer asking to have the rules explained to him and my lawyer sent him a copy of the order.

At what point do I call the police and ask them to arrest this guy? I got the DVRO because I sent letters to his attorney for 7 months and nothing changed, he just kept finding new ways to harass me. He refuses to just move on and leave me alone. We have a child together who is in my custody with weekly visitation and our divorce case is not done so I have to see him in court but I don't want to ever see him or hear from him outside court.

Is a pocket dial or social network follow enough to call the police for with a DVRO? The judge thought a lot time before granting the order because there was no physical violence involved, but she determined that I was being harassed and had the right to this protection. I'm worried the cops or judge will think I'm going too far to go to the police over a phone call or online follow, but when I saw each of those, right after getting a DVRO to keep this person out of my life, it scared the crap out of me.

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi, I had a 3-year DVRO granted recently against my ex-husband for harassment. He is mentally unstable and is the kind of person who will just keep pushing the rules until something big happens (maybe even after that). So far, in the 3 weeks since the DVRO, he has called my phone once (said it was a pocket dial) and followed me on a social network (which is creepy and violates the ban on indirect contact). My lawyer sent letters about these but did not advise me to call the police on either. I don't think my ex even read the DVRO, after my lawyer warned him these were violations he called my lawyer asking to have the rules explained to him and my lawyer sent him a copy of the order.

At what point do I call the police and ask them to arrest this guy? I got the DVRO because I sent letters to his attorney for 7 months and nothing changed, he just kept finding new ways to harass me. He refuses to just move on and leave me alone. We have a child together who is in my custody with weekly visitation and our divorce case is not done so I have to see him in court but I don't want to ever see him or hear from him outside court.

Is a pocket dial or social network follow enough to call the police for with a DVRO? The judge thought a lot time before granting the order because there was no physical violence involved, but she determined that I was being harassed and had the right to this protection. I'm worried the cops or judge will think I'm going too far to go to the police over a phone call or online follow, but when I saw each of those, right after getting a DVRO to keep this person out of my life, it scared the crap out of me.

Please clarify:

1. He hasn't bothered except for a questionable butt-dial and perhaps watching you on Facebook?

2. You're not divorced yet and you do have a child with him?

What proof do you have?

 

[Ladyback1]

I'm probably taking a really hard stance; but, I'd file a complaint over the facebook stalking.

However, how did you come to find out the phone call was a "butt dial"?

 

[Proserpina]

I'm more curious about the Facebook thing.

Then again I tend to be more suspicious of "accidental contact".

 

[angel_mom]

Please clarify:

1. He hasn't bothered except for a questionable butt-dial and perhaps watching you on Facebook?

2. You're not divorced yet and you do have a child with him?

What proof do you have?

1. No, those are what happened in the last few weeks since the DVRO was granted forbidding him from contacting me in any way. There was lots of stuff in the year before. This is someone who finds a new way to harass me every week. I just want him out of my life, I don't want to hear from him except for his sending papers to my lawyer, and seeing him in court. It's been years now. I didn't start out with a DVRO, over the last 1.5 years I have gone from asking him to stop to telling him to stop to getting a mutual no-contact order (non-police registered - his lawyer strongly encouraged him to sign it) to writing letters to his lawyer about his violations of that order for 7 months to saying "stop contacting me or a I will ask for a DVRO" to getting a DVRO. But he has so little interest in complying that he didn't even bother to read the DVRO when it was issued against him.

2. We separated 3 years ago, I filed the petition 2.5 years ago, and yes we have a child together unfortunately.

3. I have my phone log, I also screencapped the call and call log and immediately emailed them to my lawyer. I have the social network follow (not Facebook) in my email.

He has already been warned about pocket dials because he called me a few months ago during the non-police no contact order. That time was immediately after screaming at our son's elementary school principal about me and our divorce case in front of our son during a pickup, the principal called me and while I was on the phone with her he called three times (I didn't pick up). He claimed that was a pocket dial. So he has had plenty of opportunity to delete or edit my phone number.

My lawyer sent him an email about the phone call, and he said he was looking up my address at the court clerk when filing papers and must have accidentally called. I'm skeptical for many reasons but either way isn't it his responsibility not to violate the DVRO?

That said, obviously I chose not to file a police report about it, but I'm wondering if that was right, and what y'all's wisdom is. I don't want to get someone arrested for a genuine accident but this is someone who will exploit any loophole. Next time it will be an "accidental" email, then an "accidental" text, then a "settlement letter" about dividing our assets that opens by ragging on my boyfriend of the last 1.5 years, etc...Where do you draw the line?

 

[Proserpina]

1. No, those are what happened in the last few weeks since the DVRO was granted forbidding him from contacting me in any way. There was lots of stuff in the year before. This is someone who finds a new way to harass me every week. I just want him out of my life, I don't want to hear from him except for his sending papers to my lawyer, and seeing him in court. It's been years now. I didn't start out with a DVRO, over the last 1.5 years I have gone from asking him to stop to telling him to stop to getting a mutual no-contact order (non-police registered - his lawyer strongly encouraged him to sign it) to writing letters to his lawyer about his violations of that order for 7 months to saying "stop contacting me or a I will ask for a DVRO" to getting a DVRO. But he has so little interest in complying that he didn't even bother to read the DVRO when it was issued against him.

2. We separated 3 years ago, I filed the petition 2.5 years ago, and yes we have a child together unfortunately.

3. I have my phone log, I also screencapped the call and call log and immediately emailed them to my lawyer. I have the social network follow (not Facebook) in my email.

He has already been warned about pocket dials because he called me a few months ago during the non-police no contact order. That time was immediately after screaming at our son's elementary school principal about me and our divorce case in front of our son during a pickup, the principal called me and while I was on the phone with her he called three times (I didn't pick up). He claimed that was a pocket dial. So he has had plenty of opportunity to delete or edit my phone number.

My lawyer sent him an email about the phone call, and he said he was looking up my address at the court clerk when filing papers and must have accidentally called. I'm skeptical for many reasons but either way isn't it his responsibility not to violate the DVRO?

That said, obviously I chose not to file a police report about it, but I'm wondering if that was right, and what y'all's wisdom is. I don't want to get someone arrested for a genuine accident but this is someone who will exploit any loophole. Next time it will be an "accidental" email, then an "accidental" text, then a "settlement letter" about dividing our assets that opens by ragging on my boyfriend of the last 1.5 years, etc...Where do you draw the line?

My wisdom says he's got no other purpose than to just bother you.

In other words, I doubt he has any purely nefarious intent.

So. Go back to court, ask that Family Wizard be ordered as a means to communicate, and go from there.

 

[angel_mom]

My wisdom says he's got no other purpose than to just bother you.

In other words, I doubt he has any purely nefarious intent.

So. Go back to court, ask that Family Wizard be ordered as a means to communicate, and go from there.

Thanks for listening. Family Wizard was already ordered as the only means to communicate, twice so far - once a year ago when we agreed to a mutual no-contact, and again as part of the DVRO.

 

[CdwJava]

So far, in the 3 weeks since the DVRO, he has called my phone once (said it was a pocket dial) and followed me on a social network (which is creepy and violates the ban on indirect contact).

A single phone call with no message left is not likely to cause a DA to file for a violation of the order.

And how do you mean he "followed" you on a social network? Chances are that does NOT substantively violate the DVRO unless it is specifically stated as a condition.

Does the RO prohibit any contact at all?

My lawyer sent letters about these but did not advise me to call the police on either. I don't think my ex even read the DVRO, after my lawyer warned him these were violations he called my lawyer asking to have the rules explained to him and my lawyer sent him a copy of the order.

The defendant should already HAVE a copy as he was served with a copy of the order for it to be valid. But, I'm glad your attorney was kind enough to double down so that when/if he actually commits an actionable violation, it is made stronger.

At what point do I call the police and ask them to arrest this guy?

When he violates the order.

A DVRO violation is the only crime in CA that mandates an arrest if there is probable cause to believe it occurred (and, of course, the suspect is located at or near the scene, or in a time and location such as to permit a lawful arrest). But, a single incident of an arguable "pocket dial" and following you on a social network (whatever that means) is something that I suspect the police would have - at best - written up to send to the DA and NOT made an arrest.

We have a child together who is in my custody with weekly visitation and our divorce case is not done so I have to see him in court but I don't want to ever see him or hear from him outside court.

Does the DVRO allow for contact for issues related to the child or for custody exchanges?

Is a pocket dial or social network follow enough to call the police for with a DVRO?

You CAN, but I doubt they will act on it except, maybe, to forward a short report to the DA.

 

[CdwJava]

I'm more curious about the Facebook thing.

Then again I tend to be more suspicious of "accidental contact".

But, "suspicious" doesn't equate to "probable cause" (necessary to make an arrest, or even to pursue to trial).

 

[single317dad]

This is my personal opinion; you should take only your attorney's advice on the matter, to be quite honest.

If the contact was purely an annoyance, I'd be inclined to ignore it. Some people will continue to bother you as long as you let them, no matter what the consequences. Stop letting them know it bugs you, and it will quit.

If the contact was in any way threatening, or if I had the least inclination to believe it might be, I'd report it.

 

[angel_mom]

And how do you mean he "followed" you on a social network? Chances are that does NOT substantively violate the DVRO unless it is specifically stated as a condition. Does the RO prohibit any contact at all?

It's a california dv-130:

"The person in (2) must not...
Harass, attack, strike, threaten, assault, hit, follow, stalk, molest, destroy personal property of, disturb the peace of, keep under surveillance or block movements of the protected person.
Contact, either directly or indirectly, by any means, including, but not limited to, by telephone, mail, e-mail or other electronic means."

"Exceptions: Brief and peaceful contact with the person in (1), and peaceful contact with children in (3), as required for court-ordered visitation of children".

The phone call was direct contact by telephone, the online follow was indirect contact by electronic means, neither had anything to do with visitation.

A DVRO violation is the only crime in CA that mandates an arrest if there is probable cause to believe it occurred (and, of course, the suspect is located at or near the scene, or in a time and location such as to permit a lawful arrest). But, a single incident of an arguable "pocket dial" and following you on a social network (whatever that means) is something that I suspect the police would have - at best - written up to send to the DA and NOT made an arrest.

Thanks, this is just the kind of perspective I was looking for.

"Following" means clicking on a "follow" button that says "show me all of this person's activity on this site and notify them that I am now their follower". While I understand your skepticism, my attorney seems very certain that anything a restrained person does which results in a message going to the protected person with the restrained person's name on it constitutes indirect contact. It's almost the definition of "indirect contact".

It's extreme but when there has been harassment that's what it takes. Otherwise there are endless ways to indirectly stalk and harass someone online. He has absolutely no legitimate reason to follow my activity on this website - there is nothing about our child there.

 

[Proserpina]

I don't suppose you've changed your settings to avoid the issue, right?

 

[Proserpina]

But, "suspicious" doesn't equate to "probable cause" (necessary to make an arrest, or even to pursue to trial).

Agreed.

But then, my social network settings make it very, very difficult for a "non friend" to even find me, let alone contact me

 

[CdwJava]

The phone call was direct contact by telephone, the online follow was indirect contact by electronic means, neither had anything to do with visitation.

Under CA law you must also establish INTENT. Arguably, the call was made on accident. Nothing was said, no message was left, and he claims (to someone) it was an accident - and, it was a single occurrence. There is reasonable doubt all over that one, and a very weak argument for probable cause. Hence the reason I stated that the police would likely write it up, send it to the DA and then let the DA decide if he will file or not. And since the courts have ruled that accidental and incidental contact is NOT a violation, I suspect that unless this happens more often, no charges will be filed.

As for "following" you ... good luck trying to prove that is "contact." My county is trying to argue a case right now where the defendant (with a post-conviction CPO for criminal threats, stalking and DV) has posted inferred threats on his own Facebook page. They have not been direct, they have made reference to seeing his children and that only his death will prevent it, and he has had pictures taken with simulated firearms saying that "Daddy's Coming". The DA's office contends it's a violation of the CPO and his probation, but they're not getting much headway with the courts and, from what I'm told, the case law is not on their side.

So, arguing that his "following" you on a social media page available to the public is likely to be a hard sell to any court, and certainly to the police. As I said, they would likely - at best - write it up and send it to the DA.

It's extreme but when there has been harassment that's what it takes. Otherwise there are endless ways to indirectly stalk and harass someone online. He has absolutely no legitimate reason to follow my activity on this website - there is nothing about our child there.

If you insist on posting online, there's really little you can do to prevent someone from watching your posts unless the site allows you to block someone. And, then, if this is like Facebook, all you'd have to do would be to create a new alias that is NOT blocked.

If you don't want him to follow you, and you can't reverse his "follow" status, then you might reconsider your posting to whatever site that is.

 

[single317dad]

Agreed.

But then, my social network settings make it very, very difficult for a "non friend" to even find me, let alone contact me

OT: This is something that really burns me about the social networks. I only want to communicate with my friends. Not the people I went to high school with that didn't have two words to say to me then. Not the guy I worked with 15 years ago. Certainly not an ex girlfriend. And definitely not a guy from Taiwan selling discount shoes. I have my settings locked down as tightly as I can go and still communicate with my circle of friends.

If I Google myself, I'm everywhere. It's easy to find my profiles. There's not much anyone can see when they find them, but there they are to be found. If I did have anything to hide, my "security through obscurity" would be a complete failure. Police could find me quite easily and subpoena the account info to get the private information. A determined hacker would have a good starting point.

There are two solutions:

- Delete the accounts (or never open them in the first place), which is not very feasible since there are people I need to communicate with and for some social is the preferred means of communication.
- Use false information on the accounts, which is not only against the provider TOS but makes people wonder why I'm masquerading as John Smith, and whether I've had my meds today.

It just bothers me how liberal social networks/data miners are with the information they're entrusted with. End rant.

Back on topic: It's easy enough to turn off following. For Twitter, just require followers to be confirmed (so that not just any Joe can follow you until you confirm them). For Facebook, simply turn off followers, then only your friends can see your posts unless you make them public. The fact that anyone you don't approve of is following you at all means you're not taking online privacy very seriously, and sharing things in a manner equivalent to shouting them on a crowded street.