MAHONING COUNTY Requests for anti-stalking orders crowd out other civil cases

Judges said the courts are bogged down by a deluge of protection orders.
By BOB JACKSON
VINDICATOR COURTHOUSE REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- A Kensington Avenue man says he can't make a living because all the racetracks in the United States are in cahoots against him and won't let him win.
Likewise, all the state lotteries in the country watch his progress and deliberately set up drawings to come up with numbers so he'll lose and others will win.
His solution was to go to Mahoning County Common Pleas Court and seek an anti-stalking order against all racetracks in the country.
After a hearing, Magistrate Robert W. Bannon ruled the request was "fanciful and not deserving of serious consideration," and dismissed it.
"This is what we have to put up with," said Judge James C. Evans, rolling his eyes as he read over the man's statement.
Common pleas judges said the courts are being bogged down by a barrage of requests for civil protection orders, known as anti-stalking orders.
People are rushing to the courthouse, sometimes as many as a dozen a day, seeking a court order that they feel will protect them from harm by someone else. It's a phenomenon that seems unique to Mahoning County, and judges are trying to figure out why.
"We get them by the hundreds," said Judge R. Scott Krichbaum, noting that other counties seem to get only a handful of requests each year.
Law's history
Ohio's anti-stalking law went into effect in July 1998 but was ruled unconstitutional in October 2000 by Judge Mary Cacioppo, a retired appellate judge who was sitting by appointment at the time in Mahoning County.
But after her decision was challenged last year, Judge Cacioppo reversed the ruling on the constitutionality issue. The law went back into effect last spring. Requests for protection orders have been coming in steadily since then.
From May to December 2002, there were 234 requests for anti-stalking orders filed with the clerk of courts office in the courthouse. About 125 such requests have been filed so far this year. During a 10-month span in 2000, before the law was struck down, there were nearly 375 actions filed, Judge Krichbaum said.
When a request is filed, a hearing must be held immediately to determine whether a temporary order should be issued.
The person against whom the order is being sought does not have to be notified and isn't required to attend, which Judge Krichbaum said is not fair.
If a temporary order is issued, a second hearing is set with both sides present. Evidence is presented and the court determines whether to make the order permanent or to drop it.
In many cases, the person who seeks the order doesn't bother to show up for the second hearing, said Judge Jack Durkin.
"That calls into question just how serious the problem was in the first place," he said.
The judges said Bannon, who was hired to help handle civil matters, now is kept busy doing nothing but anti-stalking orders while people with long-standing civil lawsuits have to wait in line for a day in court.
Differences
Anti-stalking orders are similar to restraining orders that are issued through domestic relations court. The differences are that there does not have to be a household relationship between the parties and the $200 filing fee normally required for new civil cases is waived. They are often sought by people involved in family or neighborhood disputes.
Judge Krichbaum said those are not true cases of stalking, so it should not be an available remedy.
Bannon said many complaints are filed because of romantic triangles, in which two parties want to keep the third from bothering them.
"A lot of times our petitioners are not operating with the purest of motives," Bannon said. "They're supposed to be here seeking a shield but what they really want is a sword."
He said the orders are in effect for two years.
In some cases, an anti-stalking order is sought by someone who says he or she was threatened by another person.
Judge Durkin said that's a legitimate concern, but there's already a law on the books allowing them to go the their local prosecutor's office and file criminal charges of menacing, which could bring a six-month county jail sentence for those convicted.
The penalty for violating an anti-stalking order is being found in contempt of court, fined and possibly jailed for a few days.
"To me, a bigger hammer would be that criminal charge with the longer jail sentence rather than a piece of paper," he said.
What happens
Judge Evans said part of the problem could be that when people go to the city prosecutor's office, they're almost immediately referred to common pleas court for an anti-stalking order instead of having the case pursued in municipal court.
"I think it's too easily done," Judge Evans said. "It's an easy way of satisfying people and getting them out of your hair."
He understands, though, that the city prosecutor's office is short-staffed and does not have the manpower to handle such a high volume of complaints.
"Still, it's fairly out of place in common pleas court," Judge Krichbaum said.
City Prosecutor Dionne Almasy could not be reached to comment.
Judge Krichbaum said some people see it as "status symbol" to get an anti-stalking order against someone.
"When there is a genuine need for relief, this is not a bad thing," the judge said. "But when you see the numbers swell and you know there aren't that many genuine stalking cases, you know there has to be abuse of the system."
Repeat filers can be deemed vexatious litigators, as was the case with the Kensington Avenue man. That means they can't initiate any other actions in virtually every court in the state without judicial consent.
Judge Evans said county and city officials must talk about the problem and find other ways to help people resolve disputes without a court order.
"We have to stem the tide from the court's level," he said.
bjackson@vindy.com