I have a friend who would up getting in trouble with his GF. They started fighting, and she wound up taking out a restarining order against him. Now, one year later, he goes back to court (after moving to an adjoining state and having no contact of any kind with her)-and the judge renews the order for another year.
Seems unfair to me, and there has been no contact of any kind.
Can this be appealed? Having a RO on your record looks bad…and it is often a basis for denying someone a job.
Is there some way to overturn such an order?
IANAL but I would be surprised if the legal system offered no means of appeal from a single ruling.
The question is if it is worth his time and money to bother? If he has no contact with her and lives in another state not sure how it matters to him beyond being annoyed the state considering him a threat to her.
Wouldn’t the appeal still be on his record anyways? Honestly, to an employer (or most anyone else) a RO or an RO that was appealed are going to look the same.
If he has no contact of any kind with her, why does he care if there’s a restraining order?
Because NOBODY would form an unfavorable opinion of a person based on the simple fact that a restraining order has been issued on that person.
Might be interesting to learn if one (an RO) can not only be reversed, but expunged.
First, why is there a restraining order to begin with? This did not happen without notice. The friend had the opportunity to go to court in the first place. And when the renewal came up, he would/should have had notice then too. What happened? And now suddenly he wants to make a court appearance to appeal? Where is his counsel in all this?
In my opinion, a domestic restraining order in another state means very little to an employer. It may be that the friend merely wants revenge on the old GF in any way possible. Of course, she is still geeking him a year later too.
PS> The other state could only be two blocks away and the GF may have great reasons for the order. I could care less who has a restraining order on me when I don’t plan on violating the terms anyway. I can’t help but think there must be a history here that supports the court’s decisions.
It is illegal to possess a firearm when subject to a restraining order. I don’t know if the OPs friend likes to hunt, target shoot, collect guns, or carry a weapon for protection, but that is something that could be a factor.
Is that a federal restriction that blankets the nation*, or is the RO subject free to arm himself in a state other than the one that has placed the sanction upon him?
*Be kind of weird to think that California could tell Texas “This guy has no right to bear arms in your state,” and Texas would be compelled to enforce the restriction. Not saying it can’t be the case, just that it would be weird.
Federal. 18 USC 922(g)
Thanks for fighting some ignorance today, jtgain! 
ETA: Still weird, though.
Good luck with that. I went through a very nasty unbelievable divorce. My ex Nut Job made false accusations and got a restraining order against me so I couldn’t go to my home. She used this restraining order to keep me out of my house while she moved her boyfriend in. Anyways, I tried to fight the restraining order. In court my attorney got her up on the stand and asked her:
“Had he hit you, pushed you, shoved you, slapped you, etc etc ?” For some reason she couldn’t bring herself to lie in court and answered truthfully “no” to all of the questions. So I am thinking there is no way she is going to get an order. The judge turns to her and says “So, why do you want a restraining order”. She says “because I am scared of him”. Judge grants her a 1 year restraining order against me. Boyfriend moves in that night.
I was very upset at this decision as I had done NOTHING wrong. I asked my attorney, how in the world can this happen when she admitted I did nothing to her? His response was that Judges “error on the side of caution”. So much for my rights as a human being. He told me that if you are a man and a woman makes a allegation agaisnt you, it doesn’t matter if it can be proved or not. You are guilty until proven innoccent and you aren’t going to be proved innoccent. Gotta love our judicial system.
They can be appealed, but it’s probably expensive and appeals are mostly based on errors of procedure, fact or law and there’s probably not much to base an argument on. Not renewing a restraining order is a judgement call and one that usually makes a judge say “Ehhh… what good could come of it? They’ve been doing fine not being around each other, let’s just keep doing that.”
My ex-darling Marcie obtained a restraining order against me; that order was vacated as a condition of our divorce. Therefore, I assume there is a legal defense against it, at least in Florida but I imagine both parties would have to agree to vacate the original order. It always burned my ass that she was able to appear before a judge and have the order issued based entirely on her testimony; I wasn’t informed of the hearing and had no chance to challenge the issuance of such an order; the first I knew of it was when the cops showed up to confiscate my handgun.
Let’s be honest. ROs are handed out like candy. As we have seen in this thread the man does not have to be guilty of any crimes to have one entered against him. I think the ONLY way to make sure that it doesn’t get renewed indefinitely is to come to an agreement (read: cash settlement) so that he and she can jointly petition the court to rescind the order.
That being said, since there is an RO, you can’t just call her up and start negotiating. I’m not sure how far an attorney can contact her on your behalf. If I was in the situation, I would do what it takes to get it settled, not only because I’m a gun guy, but any employer or otherwise who sees that on your record is going to assume that in your free time you sit around and drink beer in your underwear and slap the shit out of your wife/gf when dinner is five minutes late.
It’s a sad commentary on the law when vindictive ex wives/gfs can abuse the legal system and use a tool that was meant to protect battered women for their own personal goals.
Insignificant nit pick - it’s ‘err’ on the side of caution, not error.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
Federal. 18 USC 922(g)
[/QUOTE]
My reading of that law says that it’s illegal to **sell **guns if you have a restraining order, and perhaps to buy guns. It doesn’t mean you have to turn in guns that you have.
Restraining orders can be contested, and if it’s affecting the OP’s friend’s job prospects, it probably should be. That could be grounds for objection to the renewal. If this person is in another state, doesn’t have a history of violence, and hasn’t continued to harass the ex-GF, a reasonable judge could be persuaded.
I bolded two VERY important words in your statement.
Thanks for the replies:
another question-are these ROs constitutional? It seems like you are declared guilty without any trial. Given that an active RO can prevent you nfrom earning a living, it seems a gross abuse of a court’s power over you.
What is this guy supposed to do? He lives far away from this woman, and has no contact with her.
Pretty scarey situation!
Well, obviously, the Supreme Court has never found them to be unconstitutional (but that said, the Supreme Court only rules on cases which are brought before them; I have no idea if such a case has ever been brought to that level.)
It’s clear that the general mindset of the courts in this matter is to err on the side of caution – better to issue the RO, and potentially give the restrainee issues, than to not issue the RO, and facilitate bodily harm against the filer (though, I have to suspect that it’s not uncommon for women to be assaulted or murdered by their spouses / exes, even with a RO in place).
Restraining orders, and the structure of domestic violence laws generally (they only date from the early 1970s in most states) have been upheld as constitutional everywhere, as far as I know.
In Ohio, a battered individual or victim (most often but not always a woman) can go to court and get an ex parte RO after agreeing to be the complaining witness (CW) in a criminal case against the defendant. The charge(s) might be domestic violence, assault, stalking, etc. ROs can also be issued in civil cases where the alleged bad guy is not actually charged with a crime. Ex parte means the defendant is not informed of the hearing and need not be present for the RO to be granted.
Restraining orders issued by my Ohio muni court typically require the defendant to stay away from the CW, to have no contact of any kind with her, not to ask anyone else to do something the order prohibits him from doing, to return any keys or garage door openers, to not interfere with her right to occupy her dwelling, to refrain from alcohol and nonprescription drug use while the case is pending, etc. The RO may also address the question of custody and visitation, if the parties have children. The RO is served upon the defendant, and given to the county sheriff and to police in the cities where the CW lives and works.
A followup hearing is usually held within a few weeks. The defendant may appear and enter a plea to the criminal charge(s), if any. He may also object to the RO, but in the vast majority of cases, he doesn’t. It’s up to the trial judge or magistrate to alter the RO as he sees fit, and this does happen from time to time. As obbn said, though, most courts figure, “Better safe than sorry.”
ROs are, in practical terms, only enforceable within the state where they’ve been issued, notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause and subsequent Federal laws to that end. Other states IME don’t care much if a CW has a RO issued elsewhere; better to get another one in that second state if you, as a CW, are going to be spending much time there.
Despite what you see in movies, IME it’s very rare for a RO to be violated in any significant way. In almost 20 years as a lawyer, incl. lots of DV work, I’ve never heard of anyone subject to a RO issued in a case in which I’ve been involved actually then hurting or killing a CW. It happens, but not nearly as much as Hollywood would have you think.