Judge reverses ruling on anti-stalking law

The ruling was challenged by an attorney from Northeast Ohio Legal Services.
By BOB JACKSON
VINDICATOR COURTHOUSE REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- A judge has reversed her ruling that a law designed to protect people from being stalked is unconstitutional.
That means people can once again seek anti-stalking civil protection orders through the common pleas court.
"We're starting to see people coming in for them again," said Kathi McNabb Welsh, chief deputy for the Mahoning County clerk of courts.
In October 2000, visiting Judge Mary Cacioppo ruled that Ohio's anti-stalking law, which went into effect in July 1998, is invalid because it denies people their due legal process. She also said such procedures belong in lower courts, not common pleas court.
Judge Cacioppo's decision came in a case that was pending in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court.
Her decision was challenged last month by Atty. Christine Legow of Northeast Ohio Legal Services on the grounds that no one had notified the Ohio attorney general's office before having a hearing on the constitutionality issue, said Mahoning County Prosecutor Paul Gains.
Legow could not be reached to comment.
What's necessary
The attorney general must be notified in cases where Ohio law is being challenged so it can send a representative to assist in defending it, Gains said.
Without that notification and representation, Judge Cacioppo's ruling is invalid.
"When that was brought to the judge's attention, she immediately vacated her decision," Gains said. He said that happened in late April.
The prosecutor's office has filed a motion to dismiss Legow's challenge, saying it's now moot since the judge has set aside her decision.
Under the law, anyone can seek a civil protection order, known as an anti-stalking order, by contending that someone might harm him or her.
Gains said the person seeking an order must prove that he or she is in immediate threat of physical harm, or that the person from whom he or she needs protection has a conviction for menacing by stalking.
A hearing is conducted without the accused present, and orders are granted by a judge or magistrate based on only one side of the story.
In her October 2000 ruling, Judge Cacioppo took issue with the fact that the law allows someone to be named in an anti-stalking action without a chance to present evidence, confront witnesses or have a case against him proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nearly 250 anti-stalking orders were issued through Mahoning County Common Pleas Court in 2000, before Judge Cacioppo's ruling ordering them stopped. The same number was filed the year before.
Columbiana County issued only about 30 orders in 2000, and Trumbull County issued none.
bjackson@vindy.com