Scenario - officers find victim and defendant in a car together after PO has been issued. They immediately arrest defendant.

When I examine the PO, the defendant is prohibited from communicating in a "threatening or harassing manner", and is required to stay away from specified addresses. However - the victim says he wasn't threatening or harassing, the car is not one of the listed addresses - and I'm not sure that there is an offense here.

After looking at CCP 17.292, am even less sure that there is an offense. If this is correct, it is rather unfair to both defendant and officers - especially since I have some victims who will say that an action today is a threatening communication, but the same action tomorrow is not.

What are the rest of you doing? Am I missing something here?

Lisa L. Peterson
Nolan County Attorney

What exactly does the order prohibit? Does it order defendant to stay away from the listed locations only or does it include a requirement to stay away from the victim? I've seen them written both ways.

The order pretty much tracks the statute - prohibits family violence, stalking, communicating with family in a threatening / harassing manner, prohibits relayed threats, or going within 300 feet of specified addresses.

Given that the statute doesn't provide for avoiding the victim, can that be included?

Lisa L. Peterson
Nolan County Attorney

We typically include a distance-from-the-person provision (e.g., 200 yards from the Applicant) under the dragnet provision allowing the court to order the Respondent to "perform acts specified by the court that the court determines are necessary or appropriate to prevent or reduce the likelihood of family violence ..." (Fam. Code sec. 85.022(a)), but we explain that that particular order will only be enforceable by contempt, since it isn't contemplated in PC sec. 25.07(a)(3).

Thank you, Scott - good idea

Lisa L. Peterson
Nolan County Attorney