Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Antistalking  .
Series: NIJ Research Report
Published: April 1996
54 pages
92,788 bytes

Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Antistalking
Legislation:
An Annual Report to Congress under the Violence
Against Women Act

April 1996

Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Antistalking
Legislation

Annual Report to Congress
April 1996

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice
Jeremy Travis, J.D.
Director

This report was edited by Mary Graham, NIJ
publications manager, with support from Jolene
Hernon, Anne Pritchett, and Patti Schwartz, Cygnus
Corporation. The National Institute of Justice
acknowledges with thanks the contributions of the
following reviewers: Office of Policy Development,
U.S. Department of Justice; Gwen Holden, executive
director; Lisa Doyle Moran, assistant director for
legal affairs; and Nadine Rapacioli, staff
attorney, National Criminal Justice Association;
and Robert Fein, National Institute of Justice
visiting fellow and clinical and forensic
psychologist.

This report was supported by contract number
OJP-94-C-005, awarded to Cygnus Corporation by the
National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

NCJ 160943

The National Institute of Justice is a component of
the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes
the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims
of Crime.

------------------------------

Table of Contents

Foreword 

Preface

Introduction 

Chapter 1: Development of Antistalking Laws 

Chapter 2: The Characteristics and Legal Issues of
Stalking 

Chapter 3: Interventions for Domestic Violence and
Stalking 

Chapter 4: Research on Violence Against Women 

Notes

Appendix A: Antistalking Code Citations and
Constitutional Challenges by State -- (NOT
INCLUDED)

Appendix B: A Model Antistalking Code for the
States 

Appendix C: Principal Recommendations of the
Project to Develop an Antistalking Model Code 

Appendix D: Selected Bibliography 

Appendix E: Threat and Intent Requirements -- (NOT
INCLUDED)

------------------------------

Foreword

Passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA),
Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322),
marked a major change in our national response to
crimes such as domestic violence, sexual assault,
and stalking. The Act fosters collaboration among
law enforcement, health care providers, nonprofit
service groups, community leaders, and the private
sector. In addition, the Act provides a substantial
commitment of Federal resources for police,
prosecutors, prevention programs, and victim
service initiatives in cases involving these
crimes. Taken together, these provisions are
helping communities throughout our country to
develop a seamless system to respond to these
crimes.

An important provision of the VAWA directs the
Attorney General to submit annual reports to
Congress providing information concerning the
incidence of stalking and the effectiveness of
State antistalking efforts and legislation. While
there is increased awareness of the problem of
stalking, both in the private and public sectors,
there is much that we do not know. Although
stalking has entered the public consciousness
through some highly publicized cases, stalking
affects many people every day, crossing all racial,
social, religious, ethnic, and economic lines. We
know that stalking is a crime of terror, power, and
control. But we do not always know how to prevent
or respond to this complex crime. To meet the
challenge of formulating an effective criminal
justice strategy for combatting stalking, we must
increase our knowledge about stalkers, intervention
techniques, prevention efforts and law enforcement
policies and practice.

The Department of Justice is committed to taking a
hard look at what is being done nationally to
address the crime of stalking. As a former victim
of stalking and as the Director of the Violence
Against Women Office, I support and applaud these
efforts. We have begun a process that may one day
bring greater peace and harmony into the lives of
so many innocent victims and their loved ones.

Bonnie J. Campbell
Director
Violence Against Women Office

------------------------------

Preface

The Violence Against Women Act, Title VI of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994 (Public Law 103-322), represents a significant
turning point in our Nation's efforts to diminish
the violence that undermines the security, health,
and hopes of many women. This legislation reflects
the recognition that violence against women is
criminal, with far-reaching harmful consequences
for families, children, and society.

In response to the Act, the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) is carrying out an extensive research
and evaluation program to develop knowledge about
effective responses to violence against women. One
element of the program involves specific studies
and reports mandated by the legislation.

This report on domestic violence, stalking, and
antistalking legislation responds to Subtitle F of
the Violence Against Women Act, which directs the
Attorney General to submit an annual report on
these matters.

Because of its role in supporting the development
of the Model State Antistalking Code, NIJ was
assigned responsibility for this report. As yet,
little hard data exist on the incidence of stalking
and its relationship to domestic violence. State
antistalking laws have only recently been enacted,
and the extent to which the laws are being used,
alone or with other statutes, has not yet been
measured. This first annual report, therefore,
assembles existing information available on these
issues and includes citations for existing State
statutes and constitutional challenges as of
January 1996. 

NIJ is supporting an exploratory study of the crime
of stalking from the perspective of the victim.
Other NIJ research, which is examining the broader
issues of family violence and violence against
women, will contribute data relating to these
crimes and information useful for intervention
efforts.

Jeremy Travis
Director
National Institute of Justice

------------------------------

Introduction

Stalking is a distinctive form of criminal activity
composed of a series of actions (rather than a
single act) that taken individually might
constitute legal behavior. For example, sending
flowers, writing love notes, and waiting for
someone outside her place of work are actions that,
on their own, are not criminal. When these actions
are coupled with an intent to instill fear or
injury, however, they may constitute a pattern of
behavior that is illegal. 

In domestic situations, stalking typically occurs
after the woman has attempted to leave the
relationship. The man, unable to accept rejection
and unwilling to let the woman leave, begins to
follow, threaten, harass, or assault her. The term
"separation assault" has been coined to describe
this behavior.1

The first State antistalking laws were passed in
1990. Before their passage, police and prosecutors
often felt hamstrung in their efforts to assist a
woman who had been threatened by a stalker. (See
the sidebar on the next page, "Laws Change the
Response to Stalking.") There were no applicable
laws to protect a person from this trauma until the
perpetrator actually "did something" to her. Today,
49 States and the District of Columbia have
legislation that addresses the problem of stalking;
and in the 19 States where the laws have been
challenged on constitutional grounds, they have
been upheld with only three exceptions. 

Increased awareness of the dimensions and nature of
the problem of violence against women, including
stalking and its personal and social costs,
culminated last year in passage of the Violence
Against Women Act, Title IV of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law
103-322, referred to as the 1994 Crime Act).2 This
report to Congress responds to Subtitle F of the
Act, which directs the Attorney General to submit
an annual report to Congress providing information
concerning the incidence of stalking and domestic
violence and the effectiveness of State
antistalking efforts and legislation.

This first annual report was compiled primarily
from a review of published literature about
stalking and violence against women (particularly
studies and reports commissioned by the U.S.
Department of Justice), discussions with
researchers and practitioners involved in reducing
violence against women; and case law analysis of
antistalking laws. It presents currently available
information about the crime of stalking as it
occurs between domestic partners, strangers,
acquaintances, and coworkers, with special emphasis
on stalking as it relates to domestic violence. 

Stalking and domestic violence are gender-neutral
crimes (stalkers and batterers can be either male
or female); for consistency, however, this report
refers to stalkers and batterers as men and victims
as women.

Scope of This Report

Chapter 1 focuses primarily on stalking, briefly
discussing the history of the stalking issue and
the passage of antistalking legislation. Chapter 2
examines stalking in more detail, especially as it
occurs in domestic violence situations, and reviews
information currently available on antistalking
legislation, the characteristics of stalking,
constitutional challenges to the legislation, and
anecdotal information about the impact of the laws.
Chapter 3 discusses interventions for domestic
violence and stalking, including community
policing, arrest and protection orders,
collaborative court approaches and other
multidisciplinary techniques, as well as threat
assessment procedures. Chapter 4 concludes the
report with an overview of research and programs
designed to increase our understanding about crimes
against women, including stalking, and ways to
prevent and respond to them.

Appendix A (not included in this file), which was
prepared by the Justice Department, provides
stalking codes citations by State as well as an
analysis of constitutional challenges to the
statutes as of January 1996. Appendixes B and C,
which are reprinted from the National Criminal
Justice Association's Project to Develop a Model
Antistalking Code for States, contain the model
antistalking code and recommendations for further
action prepared by members of the model code
resource group.3 Appendix D provides a selected
bibliography of materials focusing on violence
against women. Appendix E (not included in this
file) contains charts profiling statutory threat
and intent requirements. 

Two key related documents provide a more detailed
description of the development of the model
antistalking code, policy issues related to
antistalking legislation, and information on State
antistalking statutes: Project to Develop a Model
Antistalking Code for States (1993) and Regional
Seminar Series on Implementing Antistalking Codes
(1996), published by the National Institute of
Justice and the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
respectively.4

------------------------------

Laws Change the Response to Stalking

Antistalking laws provide law enforcement officials
with a mechanism for intervening before violence
occurs. The changes in the response are reflected
in these two cases:

1990

In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, a stalking victim, Jane McAllister,
recounted how her chance encounter with a minor
acquaintance in 1990 became a nightmare. The man
began following and telephoning her repeatedly; he
wrote bizarre notes, came to her house, offered her
money, and often told her he loved her and wanted
to marry her. His behavior escalated into a hostile
pursuit. On one occasion when she was on foot, he
followed her in a truck and shouted obscenities at
her. Another time, he said he would wait for her to
die and then dig up her body so he could have her.

According to McAllister, "The police were not
insensitive, but they were stymied. The man
violated almost every area of my life, but had
broken no law. The police worked with me to prevent
an assault, but, in the final analysis, said there
was nothing they could do until an assault
occurred.

"I changed my routine, I lived in constant fear of
an attack... It was clear that this man, who was
apparently crazy, was not going to let up and that
the authorities were powerless to stop him. Though
he was free to move about, I was living in a state
of siege."

To help herself and other stalking victims cope
with the experience of stalking, McAllister formed
a support group. Of the original members of the
group, all eventually gained some measure of
relief: one stalker committed suicide and one was
incarcerated for crimes unrelated to stalking. The
remaining three stalkers tempered their behavior
after their States passed antistalking
legislation.*

1993

John and Edie Pallas' marriage was characterized by
violence; in one episode, John beat Edie so
severely he broke her jaw. When they decided to
divorce, Edie moved in with her parents, but John,
angered by Edie's decision to leave, began
telephoning her at her parents' home and delivering
threatening messages. On one Sunday in January
1993, he began calling at 7:00 a.m. and continued
calling throughout the day, forcing Edie's parents
to take the phone off the hook several times. When
he did get through he cursed and threatened Edie's
parents.

Under Florida's antistalking law, John Pallas was
arrested, charged with aggravated stalking, and
convicted.

Florida's law states in part that "any person who
willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or
harasses another person, and makes a credible
threat with the intent to place that person in
reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits
the offense of aggravated stalking." The law
further states that a person engages in harassment
by "engaging in conduct directed at a specific
person that causes substantial emotional
distress..."

On appeal, John Pallas claimed that Florida's
antistalking law was vague and overly broad.
However, the appellate court upheld the Florida
statute and found that he had indeed unlawfully
harassed and threatened his estranged wife.**

*McAllister, Jane, testimony before the Judiciary
Committee, U.S. Senate, "Antistalking Legislation,"
September 29, 1992, p. 51.

**Pallas v. State 636 So. 2nd 1358 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 1994).

------------------------------

Chapter 1 

Development of Antistalking Laws

Stalking first garnered widespread public concern
when a popular, young actress named Rebecca
Shaeffer was shot to death in 1989 by an obsessed
fan who had stalked her for 2 years. The case
galvanized national attention to this serious
problem. Radio and television talk shows, the mass
market print media, and television news magazines
all ran stories about stalking, its potentially
deadly consequences, the terrifying helplessness
victims experienced, and celebrities who had been
stalked.

Although it was the death of a celebrity victim
that first attracted media attention, stalking
victims are women from all walks of life, and most
are trying to end a relationship with a man, often
one who has been abusive. Some advocates of
battered women believe that up to 80 percent of
stalking cases occur in a domestic context.5
Currently, there is little hard data, however, on
how many stalkers and victims are former intimates,
how many murdered women were stalked beforehand, or
how many stalking incidents overlap with domestic
violence.

------------------------------

Creating a Model Antistalking Code

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) began
investigating stalking issues with the enactment of
the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Justice, State,
the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriation
Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-395),
signed on October 6, 1992. The legislation mandated
that: 

The Attorney General, acting through the Director
of the National Institute of Justice, shall (1)
evaluate existing and proposed antistalking
legislation in the States, (2) develop model
antistalking legislation that is constitutional and
enforceable, (3) prepare and disseminate to State
authorities the findings made as a result of such
evaluation, and (4) report to the Congress the
findings and the need or appropriateness of further
action by the Federal Government by September 30,
1993.

NIJ commissioned the National Criminal Justice
Association (NCJA) to develop a model code, which
was published in Project to Develop a Model
Antistalking Code for States* (referred to in this
document as the Model Antistalking Code Report; see
Appendix B for text of the Model Code and
accompanying commentary).

A project resource group composed of members from
the following organizations collaborated on the
project:

o American Bar Association

o American Civil Liberties Union

o Los Angeles Police Department

o Mobil Corporation

o National Organization for Victim Assistance

o National Victim Center

o National District Attorneys Association

o National Conference of State Legislatures

o National Center for State Courts

o National Association of Attorneys General

o National Governors' Association

o Police Executive Research Forum

o U.S. Department of Justice's Office for Victims
of Crime

o U.S. Secret Service

In addition to assisting in developing or reviewing
the language of the model code and commentary, the
resource group made recommendations for stalking
intervention strategies, interdisciplinary
responses in handling stalking incidents, the
formulation and use of protective orders in
stalking cases, and possible amendments to other
stalking-related legislation.

The commentary discusses profiles of existing State
stalking statutes and issues that arose in drafting
the model code. It also provides an overview of how
police agencies managed stalking incidents at the
time. Recommendations for States concerning bail
and sentencing, code implementation, and stalking-
related research are also included.

*National Criminal Justice Association, Project to
Develop a Model Antistalking Code for States,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, October 1993.
Available from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service, 1-800-851-3420, order no. NCJ
144477.

------------------------------

Estimates of the number of stalkers in the United
States vary from 20,000 to 200,000.6 It is unknown
how many stalkings result in murder, how many
victims are able to elude their stalkers by
relocating or changing their identities, how many
stalkers eventually stop pursuing their target in
the absence of legal interventions, and how many
stalkers choose new targets.7

The initial publicity about Rebecca Shaeffer's
death resulted in a rush to pass antistalking
legislation. California passed the first
antistalking legislation in 1990, and by 1992, 27
States had enacted similar legislation. Today, 49
States and the District of Columbia have
antistalking laws.8

Initially, State laws varied widely. One observer
noted that the first wave of legislation had
resulted in a "hodgepodge of flawed statutes,"
placing prosecutors in a position of dealing with
laws that were virtually unenforceable due to
ambiguities and the dual requirements to show both
specific intent and a credible threat.9

To assist the States in their efforts to respond to
stalking, Congress in 1992 directed the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ), the research branch of
the Department of Justice, to undertake a project
to develop model antistalking legislation that
would be both constitutional and enforceable.10 NIJ
tapped the National Criminal Justice Association
(NCJA) for help in developing the model code and
delivered the model antistalking legislation to
Congress in October 1993. Copies were widely
distributed to the States. Subsequently, with a
grant from the Office of Justice Programs' Bureau
of Justice Assistance, NCJA conducted a series of
regional training seminars to address issues
related to implementing the model code. (See the
accompanying sidebars, "Creating a Model
Antistalking Code" and "Conducting Training
Seminars on the Model Codes," as well as Appendixes
B and C.)

Since the early 1990s, when the first antistalking
legislation was passed, many States have amended
their initial laws, in part due to concerns about
constitutional challenges and other issues that
arose in implementing the laws. Many of the initial
statutes, for example, did not specifically
prohibit threats or assaults on nonfamily members,
such as the victim's new intimate partner. In
general, the revised laws include specific intent
and credible threat requirements, broaden
definitions, refine wording, stiffen penalties, and
emphasize the suspect's pattern of activity.
Appendix E (not included in this file) shows intent
and threat requirements by State. State statutes
typically define stalking, in essence, as culpable
and repeated following and harassing of another
person. Many States require that the stalker
exhibit a pattern of conduct and possess an intent
to instill fear in the victim.

------------------------------

Conducting Training Seminars on the Model Code

Conducting Training Seminars on the Model Code As a
followup to the model code project, the Bureau of
Justice Assistance and the Office for Victims of
Crime within the Office of Justice Programs in the
U.S. Department of Justice directed the National
Criminal Justice Association to conduct a series of
regional seminars to assist States in developing
and implementing antistalking codes.* The seminars:

o Acquainted State-level policymakers and criminal
justice practitioners with the model antistalking
code.

o Helped officials assess the strengths and
weaknesses of existing State laws.

o Discussed ways to develop alternative approaches
to or revise current methods of enforcing
antistalking laws.

The original model code resource group continued to
guide the development of training materials and
recommendations that arose from the seminar series.

Issues raised by participants include the
following:

o Should a stalker's motivations play a role in the
prosecution of the case?

o What should be the role of evaluation and
counseling in handling and sentencing stalkers?

o How should law enforcement officials handle a
stalking case in which the victim is unwilling or
unable to cooperate with the prosecution?

*The report, Regional Seminar Series on
Implementing Antistalking Codes, Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Assistance, forthcoming 1996, is available from the
National Criminal Justice Reference Service,
1-800-851-3420, order no. NCJ 156836.

------------------------------

Chapter 2 

The Characteristics and Legal Issues of Stalking

Until fairly recently, police had little power to
arrest someone who behaved in a threatening but
legal way. Even when the suspect had followed his
victim, sent her hate mail, or behaved in a
threatening manner, the police were without legal
recourse. Today, however, law enforcement officials
can use antistalking statutes to help determine
whether an arrest can and should be made. In
addition, the criminalization of stalking behavior
has stimulated the development of techniques to
help law enforcement assess the level of threats
involved in such cases.

This chapter describes the general characteristics
of stalking as outlined in the literature and the
legal elements of the crime as reflected in State
statutes.

Characteristics of Stalking and Stalkers

Although every stalking case is different and
incidents within the same case can vary, over time
a stalker's behavior typically becomes more and
more threatening, serious, and violent. The
stalking activity generally escalates from what
initially may be bothersome and annoying but legal
behavior to the level of obsessive, dangerous,
violent, and potentially fatal acts.

Stalking occurs in a wide variety of situations and
between people who have various relationships, for
example, between strangers, former coworkers, and
acquaintances. Generally, the relationship between
stalker and victim can be characterized in one of
three ways: 

o Intimates or former intimates -- The persons
involved may be married or divorced, casual or
serious sexual partners, or former sexual partners.
The parties may have a history of domestic
violence.11 

o Acquaintances -- The stalker and victim may know
one another casually or be associated in an
informal or formal way. For example, they may have
had one or two dates or talked briefly but were not
sexual partners, or they may be coworkers or former
coworkers. 

o Strangers -- The stalker and victim do not know
one another at all. Cases involving celebrities and
other public figures usually fall into this
category.12 

The relationship between stalker and victim is
irrelevant in determining whether to arrest and
charge a suspect with stalking; the law prohibits
certain actions regardless of the relationship
between the parties. Relationship factors,
nevertheless, may become relevant when law
enforcement officers, prosecutors, and defense
attorneys make case processing and management
decisions. Cases involving former intimates with a
history of domestic violence, for example, require
particular sensitivity to the needs of the victim
and her safety.

The motivations for stalking cover a wide range --
desires for contact and control, obsession,
jealousy, and anger -- and stem from the real or
imagined relationship between the victim and the
stalker. The stalker may feel intense attraction to
the victim or extreme hatred. Since it was formed
in 1990, the Threat Management Unit within the Los
Angeles Police Department has found that stalkers
come from all walks of life. Many cease their
activity when confronted by police intervention,
but many do not. The more troublesome type of
stalker may exhibit a personality disorder (such as
obsessive-compulsive behavior) severe enough to
interfere significantly with the stalker's ability
to maintain a normal routine, such as holding a
steady job or maintaining stable relationships.
Such suspects dedicate an inordinate amount of
their time to writing notes and letters to their
intended targets, tracking their victim's
movements, or traveling in an attempt to achieve an
encounter.13

The Legal Elements of Stalking

In most States, to charge and convict a defendant
of stalking, several elements must be proven beyond
a reasonable doubt: a course of conduct or
behavior, the presence of threats, and the criminal
intent to cause fear in the victim. These elements
are discussed below.

Course of Conduct

Almost all States require that the defendant engage
in a "course of conduct" -- a series of acts that,
viewed collectively, present a pattern of behavior.
Some States stipulate the requisite number of acts.
For example, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and
North Carolina require the stalker to commit two or
more acts on different occasions. (See the sidebar,
"Number of States (including the District of
Columbia) Prohibiting Specific Acts in Stalking
Statutes.)

States designate as stalking a variety of different
acts, ranging from specifically defined actions
(such as nonconsensual communication or lying in
wait) to more diffuse types of action (such as
harassment). 

Threat Requirements

Most States require that the stalker pose a threat
or act in a way that causes a reasonable person to
feel fearful. Under the statutes, the threat need
not be written or verbal to instill fear (for
example, a stalker can convey a threat by sending
the victim black roses, forming his hand into a gun
and pointing it at her, or delivering a dead animal
to her doorstep). Two States (Colorado and New
Mexico) require the stalker to make a threat and
then engage in additional conduct in furtherance of
the threat.

Intent of the Stalker

To be convicted of stalking in most States, the
stalker must display a criminal intent to cause
fear in the victim. The conduct of the stalker must
be "willful," "purposeful," "intentional," or
"knowing." Many States do not require proof that
the defendant intended to cause fear as long as he
intended to commit the act that resulted in fear.
In these States, if the victim is reasonably
frightened by the alleged perpetrator's conduct,
the intent element of the crime has been met.

Constitutional Challenges to Antistalking Laws

Drafting effective antistalking legislation that
withstands constitutional challenges is a complex
task. In some cases, the distinction between lawful
activity and stalking activity can be blurry.

At the time the model code was published in fall
1993, no appellate court decisions had been
rendered. By January 1996, the Justice Department
had identified 53 constitutional challenges to
stalking statutes in 19 States. Generally, the
courts are upholding the laws. 

Defendants seeking to challenge antistalking laws
usually argue that these statues are
constitutionally defective because they are "void
for vagueness" under due process principles or are
so overly broad that they infringe upon
constitutionally protected speech or activity.  

Due process demands that criminal statutes must
give persons fair notice that their contemplated
conduct is legally prohibited. To avoid
invalidation on vagueness grounds, a statute need
not define the forbidden conduct with mathematical
precision.14 A statute will be found 
unconstitutionally vague, however, when "forbidden
conduct is so poorly defined that [persons] of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application,"15 or it
is so indefinite that it permits arbitrary arrests
or discriminatory enforcement.16 In determining the
sufficiency of a statute's notice, the court must
examine its language in light of the conduct with
which the defendant is charged.17

------------------------------

Number of States (including the District of
Columbia) Prohibiting Specific Acts in Stalking
Statutes:

Presence: 6 
Harass*: 25
Approach: 4 
Trespass: 6
Pursue or follow: 40 
Possess or show a weapon: 1
Surveillance: 8 
Disregard warning: 2
Lie in wait: 3 
Confine/restrain: 1
Intimidate: 3 
Vandalize: 4
Nonconsensual communications: 18
Cause bodily harm: 3

*The total reflects statutes that define
"harassing" within the stalking statute and also
those that refer to the State's harassment statute
for the definition. 

Notes: The statutes of four States do not enumerate
proscribed conduct (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, and
Wisconsin). The data gathered for Arizona are for
Arizona's harassment statute; for Maine, its
terrorizing statute; and for New York, its menacing
statute.

Source: Adapted from National Criminal Justice
Association, Regional Seminar Series on
Implementing Antistalking Codes, Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Assistance, forthcoming 1996.

------------------------------

Courts rarely strike down antistalking statutes on
vagueness grounds.18 In People v. Holt, 19 for
example, the defendant was convicted under the
Illinois antistalking law for repeatedly showing up
at the local skating rink where his former
girlfriend took private skating lessons and
watching her during her lessons even though there
was a restraining order against him. The Illinois
statute provides that "a person commits stalking
when he or she, knowingly and without lawful
justification, on at least two separate occasions,
follows another person or places the person under
surveillance or any combination thereof and . . .
places that person in reasonable apprehension of
immediate or future bodily harm, sexual assault,
confinement or restraint."20 In rejecting the
defendant's vagueness claim and upholding the
statute, the court concluded that it "adequately
warns innocent persons of the conduct to be
avoided: making threats, following, or placing
someone under surveillance, and thereby reasonably
producing intimidation, apprehension and fear."21
The law does not rely on strictly subjective
standards, but rather "sets explicit, objective
standards for defendant's actions, knowledge, and
the effect of his conduct on his victim."22

An antistalking statute will be found to be
unconstitutionally overbroad where it reaches
activity protected by the First Amendment,
including the exercise of free speech or lawful
assembly.23 As a general matter, courts have
applied the overbreadth doctrine "sparingly and
only as a last resort. Facial overbreadth has not
been invoked when a limiting construction has been
or could have been placed on the challenged
statute."24 Moreover, a statute will not be struck
down on overbreadth grounds unless it has a
significant effect on constitutionally protected
activity.25 

While there have been several overbreadth
challenges to antistalking statutes,26 no court to
date has struck down a State's antistalking statute
on this ground. People v. White27 is illustrative.
In that case, the defendant pleaded guilty and was
convicted of attempted aggravated assault under the
Michigan antistalking statute for calling his
former girlfriend as often as 100 times a week at
home and at work, appearing at her job, and
threatening her and her family. The defendant
sought to overturn his conviction, arguing that the
statute unconstitutionally abridged his First
Amendment right to speech by permitting a
complainant to subjectively determine which
telephone calls are acceptable and which are
criminal. The court did not agree. In upholding the
statute, the court remarked, "Defendant's repeated
telephone calls to the victim, sometimes 50 to 60
times a day whether the victim was at home or at
work, and his verbal threats to kill her and her
family do not constitute protected speech or
conduct serving a legitimate purpose, even if that
purpose is `to attempt to reconcile,' as defendant
asserts."28 The aim of the law is to prevent such
activity because the threat of violence, which is
almost always present in these types of cases, may
eventually result in the death of the victim.29

------------------------------

Antistalking Legislation Today

o Number of States with legislation that addresses
the problem of stalking: 49 and the District of
Columbia.*

o Number of States where statutes have been 
challenged on constitutional grounds: 19

*Maine uses an antiterrorizing statute. 

**The bases for constitutional challenges vary.

------------------------------

Penalties for Stalking

Many States have both misdemeanor and felony
classifications for stalking. Misdemeanors
generally carry a jail sentence of up to 1 year.
Sentences from 3 to 5 years are typical for felony
stalking offenses. Most State statutes contain
sentence-enhancing provisions if one or more
additional elements are present -- for example, if
the defendant brandished a weapon, violated a
protective order, had committed a prior stalking
offense (in 14 States, the prior offense must
involve the same victim), or directed his conduct
toward a child. Some States allow incarceration for
as long as 10 years for repeat offenses. The map on
the following page illustrates State sentencing
provisions for stalking offenses. 

Assessing the Impact of Antistalking Laws

Today, the ability to assess empirically the
effectiveness of antistalking legislation is
constrained by several factors. Estimating rates of
violence against women, especially incidents
involving intimates, remains a difficult task. A
recently released report on victimization prepared
by the Bureau of Justice Statistics noted that many
women do not report these crimes to the police
because of the often private nature of the events
and the belief that no purpose would be served in
reporting the crime.30 In addition, the absence of
baseline data about stalking (especially the
incidence of stalking before passage of
antistalking legislation) and the limited length of
time antistalking laws have been in effect impede a
precise assessment of the effectiveness of the
legislation. Exploratory research now under way
will assist in understanding the nature of the
crime and its impact on victims in one state.
(Chapter 4 discusses other related research.)

In one State, media reports and interviews with law
enforcement officers suggest that the laws are
working. Florida law enforcement officers who are
familiar with the law, for example, generally agree
that their statute fills a need. As one supervisor
of a violent crime unit expressed it: "This statute
can and will save lives."31

As police and prosecutors learn more about the
availability and applicability of antistalking
laws, the impact of the legislation is likely to
increase. "While law enforcement agencies are doing
their best to enforce the stalking law,
comprehensive stalking policies and training will
undoubtedly ensure they enforce it more
effectively."32 

In all types of stalking cases, whether between
former coworkers, acquaintances, or divorced
spouses, investigators require new ways of thinking
about the crime and preventing it. For example,
officers are learning to apply techniques for
assessing threats that emphasize gathering and
evaluating information and evidence before violence
occurs.33

One challenge in developing training and policies
is that each stalking incident is unique -- a
single technique cannot be applied to all
situations. Police officers may not initially
realize that a case they are investigating
constitutes stalking. In addition, as one
respondent to an independent survey of Florida law
enforcement agencies noted, officers are still
learning about the State's law and how to apply its
various provisions.34

------------------------------

Chapter 3 

Interventions for Domestic Violence and Stalking

The principal objective of antistalking legislation
is to intervene in a suspected stalking case before
the behavior results in physical harm. The two most
immediate and typical interventions are arrest and
protection orders.

Arrest and Protection Orders

Under antistalking laws, a pattern of behavior and
evidence of a malicious intent to cause fear is
enough to trigger arrest. Police no longer need to
wait for the suspect to "do something;" they can
make an arrest that stops the behavior at least
temporarily and sometimes permanently. The extent
to which the victim finds relief through the arrest
depends on such factors as the victim and stalker
relationship, the stalker's motivations and mental
state, the jurisdiction's bail laws, and the
strength of the prosecution's case. Following
arrest, a prosecutor also can ask the court to
impose strict pretrial release conditions requiring
the defendant to stay away from the victim.35
However, arrest policies that are in place may not
be consistently enforced, and research findings on
the effectiveness of arrest policies have been
mixed.36 Efforts continue to assess the
effectiveness of arrest policies.

Civil protection orders (often called restraining
orders) are used to keep one person from contacting
or coming within the vicinity of another person. If
the protection order is violated, courts may hold
the violator in contempt, impose fines, or
incarcerate the violator, depending on State law.
In some States, a stalking penalty is enhanced if
the stalker violates a protective order. Protective
orders can serve as the first formal means of
intervening in a stalking situation. Issuance of a
protective order puts the stalker on notice that
his behavior is unwanted and that if his behavior
continues, the police can take more severe
action.37

Historically, protection orders have had several
inherent limitations. Until recently, a woman who
moved to another State to get away from a stalker
or an abusive partner or former boyfriend (or
traveled to or worked in another State) sometimes
found that the second State could not enforce the
restraining order issued in the originating State.
The order could be enforced only in the
jurisdiction in which it was issued, and to receive
protection, the victim had to obtain another
protection order in the new State.

Another limitation is that it may be difficult for
victims to obtain a restraining order. All States
have mechanisms for issuing emergency restraining
orders, and many States have low filing fees,
especially if the case involves a spouse or former
spouse. In non-emergency situations, however, it
may take several weeks for a victim to obtain a
protection order, and the process sometimes
involves prohibitively expensive lawyer fees and
court costs, especially in nondomestic cases. 

Furthermore, enforcement of protection orders has
been difficult. Most victims assistance agencies
are all too familiar with incidents in which the
police arrived to find a woman shot and killed by a
man against whom the victim had a restraining
order. (See, for example, the sidebar, "A Boyfriend
Turns Murderer.")

The 1994 Violence Against Women Act strengthens
protection orders and substantially lessens the
hurdles for victims in several ways. Under the
Act's full faith and credit provision, States are
required to enforce one another's civil protection
orders. The Act also makes it a Federal crime for a
person to cross State lines with the intent to
engage in conduct that violates a protection order
and prohibits anyone subject to a restraining order
that meets certain specifications from possessing a
firearm. These measures strengthen protection
orders, and efforts will continue to find ways to
make restraining orders more effective in
protecting victims.

Collaborative Approaches

Cases of violence against women often present
challenges not found in other cases that come into
the criminal justice system. Much of the time, the
relationship between the offender and the victim
makes it difficult to know how best to manage and
prosecute the case and provide services to the
victim. One thing, however, is clear: collaborative
approaches involving participation by criminal
justice, social services, health, and other
agencies are essential in dealing with such crimes.
Collaborative, multidisciplinary mechanisms are
premised on the notion that when community agencies
work closely together they are more effective in
preventing crime and protecting victims. No one
component, including the criminal justice system,
can do it alone.

Community Policing

Community policing is a promising tool for
responding to stalking and related domestic
violence crimes because it is based on the concept
that police officers should proactively seek to
resolve problems, not just respond to calls for
help. Community policing puts the police in
partnership with the community to identify a
problem, define a strategy for responding, and then
evaluate the effectiveness of various responses.
Collaboration is the focus of a new $20 million
Community-Oriented Policing Services program,
"Community Policing to Combat Domestic Violence,"
which is open to police departments interested in
applying community policing techniques to fight
domestic violence.

Creative police departments are experimenting with
a number of community-based strategies that reflect
the unique nature of domestic violence -- compiling
location histories that record all responses to a
residence, assisting victims in obtaining emergency
protection orders, and finding safe houses for
women who need the special police protection other
intimidated witnesses receive.

Collaborative Court Approaches

In cases in which the stalker and the victim were
in a domestic relationship, coordination between
the criminal and civil courts is critical. Civil
court judges are more likely to focus on preserving
the family, while criminal court judges may be more
likely to determine that incarcerating the stalker
is in the family's best interests. Communication
between the two court systems allows a judge
presiding over a divorce case or a custody case to
consider pending charges and convictions for
assault or stalking in making rulings. 

Dade County, Florida, is experimenting with a
specialized court for domestic violence cases. The
court fosters a collaborative approach by drawing
on the services of a variety of family specialists
(such as psychiatrists and school counselors) who
help the court assess the attitudes and behaviors
of both the defendant and the other family members.

Other Collaborative Approaches

Practitioners, researchers, and others concerned
about violence against women have suggested that
States explore various multidisciplinary approaches
to intervening in stalking, including the
following:

o Encouraging community legal services
organizations to provide victims with help in
securing a protective order.

o Enlisting the support of victims service
organizations to provide counseling or other
services to help victims cope with the anxiety and
trauma of being a victim of stalking or battering.

o Contacting social service providers to help
recruit the family, friends, and associates of the
suspected batterer or stalker to intervene and, if
appropriate, secure treatment for him.

While observers believe that stalking behavior can
be altered by intervention, information about which
interventions work best in which situations is
still very preliminary. Effective laws must be
coupled with cooperation among and within the
systems responsible for investigating, prosecuting,
adjudicating, monitoring, and treating persons who
stalk -- i.e., police, prosecutors, judges,
probation officers, correctional organizations,
victims services organizations, social and medical
services and mental health organizations, and
community and religious groups.

------------------------------

A Boyfriend Turns Murderer

Kristin Lardner, 21, dated Michael Cartier for
about 2 months before breaking up with him on April
16, 1992. Angered over her decision to end their
relationship, Cartier followed her down the street,
beat her, and left her lying on a curb. In the
following weeks, he continued to contact and follow
her. She notified the police and obtained a
temporary restraining order. She also learned that
he had committed inhumane acts, such as killing
cats, and had a criminal record -- he had beaten
ex-girlfriends and had been caught injecting his
own blood into a restaurant ketchup bottle. At the
time he was stalking Lardner, Cartier was on
probation for having attacked a previous girlfriend
with scissors.

The judge who granted the temporary restraining
order on May 11, however, was unaware of Cartier's
criminal history and the fact that he was on
probation. The judge scheduled a hearing for a
permanent injunction to be held the following week.
On May 19, when Lardner returned to court to obtain
a permanent injunction, a different judge, who was
also unaware of the man's record, treated the case
routinely. He issued an order prohibiting Cartier
from any contact with Lardner and requiring that he
stay 200 yards way from her.

Approximately 2 weeks later, just 6 weeks after he
had first beaten her, Cartier shot and killed
Kristin Lardner in broad daylight outside a Boston
sandwich shop.* Cartier later killed himself in his
home.

*Lardner, George, Jr., The Stalking of Kristin, New
York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1996.

------------------------------

Threat Assessment

Some stalkers who make threats never actually
intend to carry them out and, therefore, do not, in
fact, pose a threat to their victim or target.
Others who never actually threaten their victim do
pose a very real danger. Differentiating between
these kinds of suspects requires specialized
knowledge and skills. When information and concern
about a possible future violent crime is presented
to a law enforcement officer, special kinds of
investigative tools and approaches can help in
accurate assessment and appropriate
action.38

Managing the case, gathering evidence to assess the
danger level, and developing behavior profiles are
critical to appropriate intervention. For example,
if the same victim and suspect are involved in
different incidents, and different police officers
are called to the scenes, each incident may be
viewed as an isolated event unless there is a
"paper trail." To avoid such an outcome, police are
encouraged to make a report even if they find no
evidence that a crime has been committed when they
respond to a call. 

To control stalking, law enforcement professionals
must craft individualized strategies specific to
each case. In some cases, the victim may know the
stalker better than anyone; in more ominous cases,
the victim may not even know who is making the
threats. (See sidebar, "Gathering Data to Enforce
Antistalking Laws," and the "Stalking Critical
Incident Diary" following this page for an example
of how one State -- New Mexico -- works with
victims to collect data on stalking behavior.)

------------------------------

Gathering Data to Enforce Antistalking Laws

The task of recording stalking incidents often
falls on victims. New Mexico's Department of Public
Safety Training Center, in conjunction with the
State's Coalition Against Domestic Violence, has
prepared a "Stalking Critical Incident Diary" that
victims can use to record the date, time, location
and type of incident, officer's name and badge
number, and witness information.

The diary (shown on the following page) and an
accompanying brochure about stalking are
distributed at hospitals, shelters, schools, police
stations, places of employment, and other similar
locations as an outreach and educational tool. The
diary helps the victim understand the dimensions of
stalking and helps law enforcement officers collect
evidence to make an arrest and win a conviction.

Source: New Mexico Department of Public Safety
Training Center, 1-505-827-9261, in cooperation
with the New Mexico Department of Health and the
New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

------------------------------

Chapter 4  

Research on Violence Against Women

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsors a
number of studies related to violence against
women, including studies of efforts to develop or
strengthen antistalking programs. 

Previous NIJ research on stalking has centered on
stalkers who pursue two types of public figures:
(1) government officials who receive U.S. Secret
Service protection and (2) movie stars, television
personalities, and other such celebrities. To
increase knowledge of ways to deal with stalkers
who attack public figures, NIJ, the Secret Service,
and the Bureau of Prisons are supporting a study of
persons who have attacked or attempted to attack
prominent public officials and public figures in
the United States since 1950.39 

A clearer picture about stalking and stalkers, the
law enforcement response, and the needs of victims
will emerge as current research yields findings.

Experiences and Needs of Former Intimate Stalking
Victims

NIJ awarded nearly $75,000 in 1995 for a project to
explore the experiences of noncelebrity women who
had been stalked by former intimate partners.40 The
project, awarded to West Chester University, will
be the first of its kind to focus specifically on
the experiences and needs of women who are victims
of stalking by a former intimate partner.40  The
research will contribute to understanding the
nature of the victims' experiences.

The study sample will consist of 200 stalking
victims in southeastern Pennsylvania. Through in-
depth personal interviews with victims, researchers
will identify the characteristics of stalker-victim
relationships both prior to the separation and at
the time of separation, characteristics of stalking
incidents, attempts the victim made to discourage
the stalker, effects of the stalking on the
victim's life, and the responses to the victim from
family, friends, law enforcement, and victims
services staff. Further, if the victim did not
report the stalking offense to the police, the
interview will explore the reasons for the
inaction.

Violence and Threats of Violence Against Women in
America

In collaboration with the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, NIJ is supporting a 36-
month study that will contribute to national
estimates on the prevalence and incidence of many
different forms of violence against women,
including stalking, physical and sexual assaults,
power and emotional abuse, and threats.41 The
research, conducted by the Center for Policy
Research in Denver, Colorado, will go beyond
studies that have focused on subcategories of
violence against women (such as domestic violence)
or subcategories of victims (such as college
students). By examining multiple forms of violence
found in a large national sample, the Violence and
Threats of Violence Against Women project will
broaden our understanding of these crimes.
Moreover, it will examine the prevalence and
incidence of violence against men by intimate
partners, thus permitting comparisons of the
pervasiveness and seriousness of male-on-female and
female-on-male intimate violence. Specifically, the
study will examine the following:

o The relationship between power and emotional
abuse, threats of violence, stalking, and actual
occurrences of violence.

o The extent to which women and men experience
violence at the hands of intimate partners.

o The severity of injury and medical costs
associated with female-on-male and male-on-female
intimate violence.

o The short- and long-term physical, psychological,
and social consequences of victimization.

o The extent and nature of criminal justice
responses to violent victimization.

o The extent and nature of stalking episodes and
victim and criminal justice responses to stalking.

The project involves telephone interviews with a
national cross-section of 8,000 women and 8,000
men. Women will be queried about their experiences
of violence inflicted by all types of perpetrators,
and men will be asked about their experiences of
violence perpetrated by intimates. 

The Effectiveness of Civil Protection Orders

The National Center for State Courts is conducting
a 2-year analysis of the effectiveness of civil
protection orders in preventing domestic violence
and assisting the victims of domestic violence.42
The study is examining and documenting a number of
protection order features, including how they are
processed, what types of relief are encompassed by
the orders, what ancillary services are available
to the victims, the extent of coordination of these
services by the courts, and how orders are
monitored and enforced. 

Researchers will rely on data from 300 case
records, interviews with 300 petitioners for
protection orders, and interviews with personnel
from courts and social service systems to evaluate
the effectiveness of particular support services
and to determine whether particular monitoring and
enforcement practices are effective in preventing
further violence.

In Summary

In the 5 or so years since stalking gained a place
on the criminal justice agenda, much has been
accomplished: researchers and policymakers have
categorized the types of stalkers, developed and
widely disseminated model antistalking legislation,
developed training curricula, and conducted
training sessions. Efforts are being made to define
terms more precisely and outline the differences
and similarities between domestic violence and
stalking. In the coming year, new data about
stalking, domestic violence, and the response to it
will be available to inform policy and practice. 

------------------------------

Notes

1Mahoney, M.R. , "Legal Images of Battered Women:
Redefining the Issue of Separation,"Michigan Law
Review (October 1991)90(1):1-95.

2Public Law 103-322, Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, signed September 13, 1994.

3National Criminal Justice Association, Project to
Develop a Model Antistalking Code for States,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, October 1993.
Available from NCJRS, 1-800-851-3420, NCJ order no.
144477.

4National Criminal Justice Association, Project to
Develop a Model Antistalking Code for States,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, October 1993. NCJ
order no. 144477. National Criminal Justice
Association, Regional Seminar Series on
Implementing Antistalking Codes, Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Assistance, forthcoming 1996. NCJ order no. 156836.

5For example, see the quote by Cheryl Tyiska,
National Organization for Victim Assistance, in
Lewin, T., "New Laws Address Old Problem: The
Terror of a Stalker's Threats," New York Times
(February 8, 1993)142(5):A1. Data reported to
police and collected by the U.S. Federal Bureau of
Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports reveal that
in 1993, 29 percent of female homicide victims were
slain by a current or former husband or boyfriend,
compared with just 3 percent of male homicide
victims. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform
Crime Reports for the United States, 1993.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 1993. 

6The number 200,000 is generally attributed to Park
Elliott Dietz, who has authored a number of papers
on various subtopics of stalking. The 200,000
figure includes the broadest possible spectrum of
stalkers, including those who send threatening mail
to public figures, such as Hollywood celebrities
and members of Congress. If incidents involving
public figures are excluded from this count, the
estimate of stalkers' numbers declines
significantly. It is believed that stalking is
underreported due to confusion about how to define
a stalking episode. The consensus among the model
code resource group is that the majority of
stalking victims are not public figures.

7Puente, M. ,"Legislators Tackling the Terror of
Stalking but Some Experts Say Measures Are Vague,"
USA Today (July 21, 1992):A9; Lingg, R.A.,
"Stopping Stalkers: A Critical Examination of Anti-
Stalking Statutes," St. John's Law Review 67:347,
350; Strikis, S.A., "Note: Stopping Stalking,"
Georgetown Law Journal 1993;81:2771 at n. 16; Beck,
A. "Murderous Obsession," Newsweek (July 13,
1992):60.

8Maine uses an antiterrorizing statute. The State
also amended its protective order statute in 1993,
adding provisions to allow protective orders to be
issued to enjoin stalking behavior.

9Carmody, C., "Deadly Mistakes," ABA Journal
(September 1994)80:68-71.

10 The model code was mandated in P.L. 102-395, the
U.S. Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State,
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 1993. The directive to develop
model antistalking legislation is contained in
(paragraph or section?) U109(b).

11 A survey of 90 Florida law enforcement agencies
reported that in most cases the victim knew the
offender, confirming reports that most cases arise
among former intimates. See Tucker, J.T., "Stalking
the Problems with Stalking Laws: The Effectiveness
of Florida Statutes Section 784.048," Florida Law
Review (September 1993)45(4):609-707.

12 Several studies have focused on celebrities and
others in high-visibility positions, including
Presidents and other elected officials. For
example, Robert Fein and Bryan Vossekuil, with
support from the National Institute of Justice,
U.S. Bureau of Prisons, and U.S. Secret Service are
conducting a study of persons who have attacked or
approached for attack prominent public figures in
the United States since 1950, under grant no. 92-
IJ-CX-0013. See also Dietz, P.E., D.B. Matthews,
D.A. Martell, T.M. Stewart, D.R. Hrouda, and J.
Warren, "Threatening and Otherwise Inappropriate
Letters to Members of the United States Congress,"
Journal of Forensic Sciences (September
1991):1445-68; Dietz, P.E., D.B. Matthews, D.A.
Markell, T.M. Stewart, D.R. Hrouda, and J. Warren,
March 4, 1991, revisions to Journal of Forensic
Sciences, "Threatening and Otherwise Inappropriate
Letters to Hollywood Celebrities," Journal of
Forensic Sciences (January 1991):185-209.

13Zona, M.A., K.K. Kaushal, and J. Lane,
"Comparative Study of Erotomania and Obsessional
Subjects in a Forensic Sample," Journal of Forensic
Sciences (April 1993)38(4):894-903; see also Dietz
et al., January 1991.

14Graynard v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 110;
92 S.Ct. 2294, 2300; 33 L.Ed. 2d 222, 228-29
(1972).

15State v. McGill, 536 N.W. 2d 89,95 (S.D. 1995)
(quoting Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S.385,
391; 46 S.Ct. 126, 127; 70 L.Ed. 2d 322, 328
[1926]). See also Johnson v. State, 449 S.E. 2d 94,
95 (Ga. 1994). 

16Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357; 103 S.Ct.
1855, 1858; 75 L.Ed. 2d 903, 909 (1983); Long v.
State, 903 S.W. 2d 52, 54 (Tx.App.Ct. 1995).

17State v. Randall, 1995 WL 576993 (Ala.Cr. App.
Sept. 29, 1995); Pallas v. State, 636 So. 2d 1358,
1360 (Fla.App.Ct. 1994), approved 654 So. 2d 127
(Fla. 1995).

18See, e.g., People v. Heilman, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d
422 (Dist.Ct.App. 1994); Gilbert v. State 659 So.
2d 233 (Fla.1995), (upholding State stalking
statutes that had been challenged as void for
vagueness). But see, State v. Bryan, 1996 WL 36169
(Kan. Jan. 26, 1996); Commonwealth v. Kwiatkowski,
637 N.E. 2d 854 (Sup.Jud. Ct. Mass. 1994) (finding
State stalking statutes unconstitutionally vague).

19Holt, 649 N.E. 2d 571 (Ill.App.Ct. 1995).

20720 ILCS 5/12-7.3(a)(2) (West Supp. 1993).

21Holt, 649 N.E. 2d at 580.

22Id.

23Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 611-12; 93
S.Ct. 2908, 2915-16; 37 L.Ed. 2d 830, 839-40
(1973); Holt, 649 N.E. 2d at 581; Pallas v. State,
636 So. 2d 1358, 1360 (Fla. App. Ct. 1994).

24Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613; 93 S.Ct. at 2916; 37
L.Ed. 2d at 841.
 
25Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman
Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494; 102 S.Ct. 1186,
1191; 71 L.Ed. 2d 362, 369 (1982). 

26See, e.g., Higgins v. State, 656 So. 2d 483
(Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1994); Folsom v. State 654 So. 2d
128 (Fla. 1995).

27People v. White, 536 N.W. 2d 876 (Mich.App.Ct.
1995).

28Id. at 883.

29Id.

30Bachman, R., and L. Saltzman, "Violence Against
Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey," BJS
Special Report, Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 1995.
BJS redesigned the National Crime Victimization
Survey to better capture information about crimes,
such as rape, domestic violence, and sexual
assault, that are frequently underreported and
therefore difficult to measure.

31 Tucker, J.T., op. cit., 694.

32 Tucker, J.T., op. cit., 649.

33 Infante, C., "The New Stalking Law," Arkansas
Lawyer (Fall 1994)28:30.

34 Tucker, J.T., op. cit., 694.

35 Under interstate domestic violence offenses (18
U.S.C. 2263) and as part of the general provisions
of chapter 207 of title 18 of the U.S.C., the
victim may address the court regarding the
defendant's dangerousness.

36The landmark study about police response to
domestic abuse was conducted by Lawrence W. Sherman
and Richard A. Berk and can be found in "The
Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment,"
Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 1984, and in
Lawrence W. Sherman and Richard A. Berk, "Specific
Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault,"
American Sociological Review (April
1984)49(2):261-272. The three options for police
response to domestic violence in the Minneapolis
project were (1) arrest, (2) attempts to mediate
and counsel both parties, and (3) sending the
assailant away from home for several hours. The
initial Minneapolis experiment found positive
effects of arrest in decreasing repeat offenses;
however, several replications in other cities
obtained mixed results. Extensive discussion about
the effectiveness of mandatory arrest can also be
found in the "Domestic Violence: Not Just a Family
Matter" hearings before the Subcommittee on Crime
and Criminal Justice of the Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives, 103d Congress,
2d session, June 30, 1994, pp. 46-73.

37Studies on civil protection orders include Finn,
P., "State-by-State Guide to Enforcement of Civil
Protection Orders," Response to the Victimization
of Women and Children (1991)14(78):3-12; Finn, P.,
and S. Colson, Civil Protection Orders:
Legislation, Current Court Practice, and
Enforcement, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1990;
Harrell, A., B. Smith, and L. Newmark, Court
Processing and the Effects of Restraining Orders
for Domestic Violence Victims, Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute, 1993; Schollenberg, E., and B.
Gibbons, "Domestic Violence Protection Orders: A
Comparative Review," Canadian Journal of Family Law
(1992)10(2):191-238. For more discussion about
using civil protection orders in stalking cases,
see National Criminal Justice Association, Regional
Seminar Series on Implementing Antistalking Codes,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
forthcoming 1996.

38Issues involving the development of prediction
models and risk assessment tools are explored in
Fein, R.A., B. Vossekuil, and G.A. Holden, Threat
Assessment: An Approach to Prevent Targeted
Violence, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, September
1995.

39Fein, R., and B. Vossekuil, "Secret Service
Exceptional Case Study Project," grant no. 92-IJ-
CX-0013, forthcoming April 1996. Some of the
research questions are as follows: How does a
person develop the idea of attacking a public
official or public figure? How does the person move
from the idea to the action? What relationship
exists between formulating the idea and acting on
it? What motivates persons to act violently toward
public officials and public figures?

40Brewster, M., "An Exploration of the Experiences
and Needs of Former Intimate Stalking Victims,"
West Chester University, proposal no. 5-8432-PA-IJ,
forthcoming October 1996.

41Tjaden, P., "Violence and Threats of Violence
Against Women in America," Center for Policy
Research, grant no. 93-IJ-CX-0012, forthcoming
January 1997.

42 Keilitz, S., "The Effectiveness of Civil
Protection Orders in Deterring Domestic Violence,"
grant no. 93-IJ-CX-0035, forthcoming April 1996.

------------------------------

Appendix B 

A Model Antistalking Code for the States

The model antistalking code development project has
sought to formulate a constitutional and
enforceable legal framework for addressing the
problem of stalking.

The model code encourages legislators to make
stalking a felony offense; to establish penalties
for stalking that reflect and are commensurate with
the seriousness of the crime; and to provide
criminal justice officials with the authority and
legal tools to arrest, prosecute, and sentence
stalkers.

The Model Antistalking Code for the States

Section 1. For purposes of this code:

(a) "Course of conduct" means repeatedly
maintaining a visual or physical proximity to a
person or repeatedly conveying verbal or written
threats or threats implied by conduct or a
combination thereof directed at or toward a person;

(b) "Repeatedly" means on two or more occasions;
and

(c) "Immediate family" means a spouse, parent,
child, sibling, or any other person who regularly
resides in the household or who within the prior
six months regularly resided in the household.

Section 2. Any person who:

(a) purposefully engages in a course of conduct
directed at a specific person that would cause a
reasonable person to fear bodily injury to himself
or herself or a member of his or her immediate
family or to fear the death of himself or herself
or a member of his or her immediate family;

(b) has knowledge or should have knowledge that the
specific person will be placed in reasonable fear
of bodily injury to himself or herself or a member
of his or her immediate family or will be placed in
reasonable fear of the death of himself or herself
or a member of his or her immediate family; and

(c) whose acts induce fear in the specific person
of bodily injury to himself or herself or a member
of his or her immediate family or induce fear in
the specific person of the death of himself or
herself or a member of his or her immediate family;
is guilty of stalking.

Analysis and Commentary on Code Language

Prohibited Acts

Unlike many state stalking statutes, the model code
does not list specific types of actions that could
be construed as "stalking." Examples of specific
acts frequently proscribed in existing stalking
statutes include following, non-consensual
communication, harassing, and trespassing.

Some courts have ruled that if a statute includes a
specific list, the list is exclusive. The model
code, therefore, does not list specifically
proscribed acts, because ingenuity on the part of
an alleged stalker should not permit him to skirt
the law. Instead, the model code prohibits
defendants from engaging in "a course of conduct"
that would cause a reasonable person fear.

"Credible Threat"

Unlike many state stalking statutes, the model code
does not use the language "credible threat."
Stalking defendants often will not threaten their
victims verbally or in writing but will instead
engage in conduct which, taken in context, would
cause a reasonable person fear. The model code is
intended to apply to such "threats implied by
conduct." Therefore, the "credible threat"
language, which might be construed as requiring an
actual verbal or written threat, was not used in
the model code.

"Immediate Family"

A stalking defendant may, in addition to
threatening the primary victim, threaten to harm
members of the primary victim's family. Under the
provisions of the model code, such a threat to harm
an immediate family member could be used as
evidence of stalking in the prosecution for
stalking of the primary victim.

The model code uses a definition of "immediate
family" similar to one currently pending in the
California legislature. This definition is broader
than the traditional nuclear family, encompassing
"any other person who regularly resides in the
household or who within the prior six months
regularly resided in the household."

If states want to consider further expanding the
definition of "immediate family," they should be
aware that broadening it too much may lead to
challenges that the statute is overly broad.

Classification as a Felony

States should consider creating a stalking felony
to address serious, persistent, and obsessive
behavior that causes a victim to fear bodily injury
or death. The felony statute could be used to
handle the most egregious cases of stalking-type
behavior. Less egregious cases could be handled
under existing harassment or intimidation statutes.
As an alternative, states may wish to consider
adopting both misdemeanor and felony stalking
statutes.

Since stalking defendants' behavior often is
characterized by a series of increasingly serious
acts, states should consider establishing a
continuum of charges that could be used by law
enforcement officials to intervene at various
stages. Initially, defendants may engage in
behavior that causes a victim emotional distress
but does not cause the victim to fear bodily injury
or death. For example, a defendant may make
frequent but non- threatening telephone calls.
Existing harassment or intimidation statutes could
be used to address this type of behavior. States
also may want to consider enacting aggravated
harassment or intimidation statutes that could be
used in situations in which a defendant
persistently engages in annoying behavior. The
enactment of a felony stalking statute would allow
law enforcement officials to intervene in
situations that may pose an imminent and serious
danger to a potential victim. 

Classification as a felony would assist in the
development of the public's understanding of
stalking as a unique crime,1 as well as permit the
imposition of penalties that would punish
appropriately the defendant and provide protection
for the victim.

Of utmost importance is a state's decision to
require the criminal justice system and related
disciplines to take stalking incidents seriously.2
A state's decision on how to classify stalking and
how to establish its continuum of charges is of
less importance.

"Conduct Directed at a Specific Person"

Under the model code's language, the stalking
conduct must be directed at a "specific person."
Threatening behavior not aimed at a specific
individual would not be punishable under a statute
similar to the model code. For example, a teenager
who regularly drives at high speed through a
neighborhood, scaring the residents, could not be
charged under a stalking statute based upon the
model code.

Fear of Sexual Assault

It is likely that victims who fear that a defendant
may sexually assault them most likely also fear
that the defendant would physically injure them if
they resisted. Furthermore, because the human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), could be
contracted through a sexual assault, a victim is
more likely to fear bodily injury or death, as well
as psychological injury. Nevertheless, due to the
nature of stalking offenses, states may want to
consider expanding the language of their felony
stalking statutes to include explicitly behavior
that would cause a reasonable person to fear sexual
assault in addition to behavior that would cause a
reasonable person to fear bodily injury or death.

Intent Element

Under the provisions of the model antistalking
code, a defendant must engage purposefully in
activity that would cause a reasonable person fear,
and the defendant must have knowledge, or should
have knowledge, that the person toward whom the
conduct is directed will be placed in reasonable
fear. In other words, if a defendant consciously
engages in conduct that he knows or should know
would cause fear in the person at whom the conduct
is directed, the intent element of the model code
is satisfied.

A suspected stalker often suffers under a delusion
that the victim actually is in love with him or
that, if properly pursued, the victim will begin to
love him. Therefore, a stalking defendant actually
may not intend to cause fear; he instead may intend
to establish a relationship with his victim.
Nevertheless, the suspected stalker's actions cause
fear in his victim. As long as a stalking defendant
knows or should know that his actions cause fear,
the alleged stalker can be prosecuted for stalking.
Protection orders can serve as notice to a
defendant that his behavior is unwanted and that it
is causing the victim to fear.

Fear Element

Since stalking statutes criminalize what otherwise
would be legitimate behavior based upon the fact
that the behavior induces fear, the level of fear
induced in a stalking victim is a crucial element
of the stalking offense. The model code, which
treats stalking as a felony, requires a high level
of fear -- fear of bodily injury or death. Acts
that induce annoyance or emotional distress would
be punishable under statutes such as harassment or
trespassing, which do not rise to the felony level
and carry less severe penalties.

In some instances, a defendant may be aware,
through a past relationship with the victim, of an
unusual phobia of the victim's and use this
knowledge to cause fear in the victim. In order for
such a defendant to be charged under provisions
similar to those in the model code, the victim
actually must fear bodily injury or death as a
result of the defendant's behavior and a jury must
determine that the victim's fear was reasonable
under the circumstances.

Source: National Criminal Justice Association,
Project to Develop a Model Antistalking Code for
States, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, October 1993.

1This idea is further explained in a Georgetown Law
Journal comment: "Aside from statutorily defined
components of stalking, a generally recognized
notion of `stalking' is evolving. Not only do
antistalking statutes indicate recognition of
stalking, public and judicial perceptions indicate
that stalking is a discretely identifiable
behavior. Although this public perception of
stalking does not obviate the need for concise
definitions in antistalking statutes, it does
provide guidance as to the types of activity
society is trying to limit through these statutes."
Silvija A. Strikis, "Note, Stopping Stalking,"
Georgetown Law Journal, 1993;81:2771 at n.16. 
2Id.

------------------------------

Appendix C  

Principal Recommendations of the Project to Develop
an Antistalking Model Code

A Model Antistalking Code for the States

o Because stalking defendants' behavior often is
characterized by a series of increasingly serious
acts, states should consider establishing a
continuum of charges that could be used by law
enforcement officials to intervene at various
stages of a stalking case.

o States should consider creating a stalking felony
to address serious, persistent, and obsessive
behavior that causes a victim to fear bodily injury
or death.

Sentencing Convicted Stalkers

o States should consider establishing a sentencing
scheme for stalking that permits incarceration as
an option for all stalking convictions.

o If a state decides not to treat stalking as a
felony, the state should consider incorporating a
system of aggravating factors into its stalking
sentencing policy so that a particular stalking
incident can be elevated from a misdemeanor to a
felony if an aggravating factor is present.

o States should consider the same penalty
enhancements for stalking convictions that they
generally apply to aggravating circumstances such
as violation of a protective order, a minor victim,
or use of a weapon during commission of the crime.
States should consider making severe enhancements
available in instances in which the defendant has
committed a previous felony or stalking offense. In
such instances, states should consider requiring
mandatory prison sentences.

o As an alternative to penalty enhancements, states
may wish to create a separate crime -- for example,
aggravated stalking -- to deal with convicted
stalkers who have committed previous felonies or
stalking offenses.

o States' stalking sentencing schemes should
incorporate release options and conditions that
increase in restrictiveness commensurate with the
risk the stalker poses to the victim. At a minimum,
states should consider no-contact orders as a
condition of release for convicted stalkers
released on probation or parole. States also may
want to consider monitoring convicted stalkers
released on probation or parole through electronic
monitoring or house arrest.

o States may wish to consider requiring convicted
stalkers, as part of their sentences, to pay
restitution to their victims. Alternatively, states
may wish to consider permitting victims to recover
damages from convicted stalkers through civil
causes of action.

o States should consider requiring evaluation and
offering counseling as part of any sentence imposed
upon a convicted stalker. States also should
consider requiring counseling as a condition of
release for convicted stalkers placed on probation
or parole.

Pretrial Release: Supervising Accused Stalkers

o States should consider developing appropriate
pretrial release conditions for accused stalkers.
At a minimum, states should consider making it a
condition of release that the accused refrain from
deliberately contacting the victim and, if
appropriate, members of the victim's immediate
family.

o States should consider including provisions in
their pretrial release or bail laws requiring
authorities to make reasonable efforts to provide
victims with copies of relevant pretrial release
orders, information about how and to whom to report
alleged violations, and lists of sanctions for
violations.

Strategies for Implementing Stalking Statutes and
Protocols

o States should consider developing a
multidisciplinary approach emphasizing early
intervention in suspected stalkings. Such an
approach should involve the  enforcement community,
the judicial system, correctional and social
services agencies, victims services and advocacy
groups, and community organizations.

o Criminal justice officials should be provided
training in the characteristics of stalkers and
their behaviors. In cases in which two or more
criminal justice disciplines have shared compatible
training needs, states should consider developing
interdisciplinary training resources.

o Police officials should receive training in four
principal areas: the provisions and evidentiary
requirements of stalking laws; identifying and
monitoring stalking incidents; assessing the
potential dangerousness of suspected stalkers; and
assisting stalking victims. Training for police
officials should be incorporated into police
recruit and roll call and inservice specialized
training curricula.

o States should consider reviewing their protective
order statutes to determine whether, under present
conditions, protective orders would be available to
all stalking victims.

o States may wish to consider adopting legislation
and complementary procedures that allow protective
orders to be issued on an emergency basis after
court hours.

o Judges should consider incorporating substance
abuse monitoring and treatment and mental health
counseling recommendations into restraining orders,
where the existence of these conditions can be
documented. 

o States should consider reviewing their protective
order statutes' notification procedures to ensure
that they provide adequate notification protocol to
all parties of the existence and specific terms of
an order.

o States should consider enacting legislation that
would allow their courts to enforce a protective
order issued by another jurisdiction in cases in
which one of their courts is informed by a victim
that she has obtained a protective order in another
jurisdiction and that it has been violated in the
non-issuing jurisdiction.

o Law enforcement agency administrators should
establish formal department policies and procedures
for dealing with stalking cases.

o States should consider enacting legislation and
establishing procedures that would encourage the
judiciary's use of criminal history record
information when making decisions about pretrial
release conditions, sentencing, and the issuance of
protective orders in stalking cases. Similarly,
states should consider developing procedures to
ensure that judicial authorities making decisions
about pretrial release and civil protection orders
in stalking cases have timely access to information
about civil protection orders applied for or issued
in any court in the state.

o States should examine their privacy and freedom
of information statutes to determine whether
amendments are needed to prevent information
contained in public records from being used for
illegal purposes.

o States should review their statutory and
regulatory victim notification provisions, as well
as the protocols of their victims' agencies, to
determine whether they are adequate to meet the
unique needs of stalking victims.
 
Source: National Criminal Justice Association,
Project to Develop a Model Antistalking Code for
States, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, October 1993.

------------------------------

Appendix D 

Selected Bibliography 

Materials listed below with accession numbers are
available through the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service, 1-800-851-3420.

Bachman, R., and L. Saltzman, "Violence Against
Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey,"
Bureau of Justice Assistance Special Report,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, August 1995 (NCJ 156348).

Beck, A., "Murderous Obsession," Newsweek, July 13,
1992, p. 60. 

Benson, K., "Stalking Stopped in its Tracks,"
Police (September 1994) 18(9):36-39, 75.

Bernstein, S.E., "Living Under Siege: Do Stalking
Laws Protect Domestic Violence Victims?" Cardozo
Law Review (1993), 15:525-567.

Brewster, M., "An Exploration of the Experiences
and Needs of Former Intimate Stalking Victims,"
West Chester University, proposal no. 5-8432-PA-IJ,
forthcoming October 1996.

Bumiller, E., "The Sister Who Made Amends: Her
Brother Killed a Woman. Now She's Fighting for
Crime Victims," Washington Post (May 9,
1995):118:C-1.

Carmody, C., "Deadly Mistakes," ABA Journal
(September 1994) 80:68-71.

Dietz, P.E., D.B. Matthews, D.A. Martell, T.M.
Stewart, D.R. Hrouda, and J. Warren, "Threatening
and Otherwise Inappropriate Letters to Hollywood
Celebrities,"Journal of Forensic Sciences (January
1991) 36(1):185-209.

Dietz, P.E., D.B. Matthews, D.A. Martell, T.M.
Stewart, D.R. Hrouda, and J. Warren, "Threatening
and Otherwise Inappropriate Letters to Members of
the United States Congress," Journal of Forensic
Sciences (September 1991):1445-1468.

English, K., Colorado Department of Public Safety,
Division of Criminal Justice, "National Survey of
Probation and Parole Departments' Management of Sex
Offenders," report to the National Institute of
Justice prepared under grant no. 92-IJ-CX-K021,
June 1995. 

Fein, R., and B. Vossekuil, "Secret Service
Exceptional Case Study Project," grant no. 92-IJ-
CX-0013, forthcoming April 1996.

Fein, R.A., B. Vossekuil, and G. Holden, "Threat
Assessment: An Approach to Prevent Targeted
Violence," Research in Brief, Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice, September 1995 (NCJ
155000).

Harlow, C.W., "Female Victims of Violent Crime,"
BJS Special Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January
1991 (NCJ 126826).

Holmes, R.M., "Stalking in America: Types and
Methods of Criminal Stalkers," Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice (December 1993)
9(4):317-327 (NCJ 147806). 

Hunzeker, D., "Stalking Laws," State Legislative
Report (October 1992) 17(19) (NCJ 148297).

Infante, C., "The New Stalking Law," Arkansas
Lawyer (Fall 1994) 28:30. 

Keilitz, S., "Effectiveness of Civil Protection
Orders," National Center for State Courts, grant
no. 93-IJ-CX-0035, forthcoming April 1996.

Langan, P.A., and J.M. Dawson, "Spouse Murder
Defendants in Large Urban Counties," Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, September 1995 (NCJ 153256).

Lane, J., "Threat Management Fills Void in Police
Services," The Police Chief (August 1992) 59(8):27.

Lewin, T., "New Laws Address Old Problem: The
Terror of a Stalker's Threats," The New York Times
(February 8, 1993) 142(5):A1.

Morin, K.S., "The Phenomenon of Stalking: Do
Existing State Statutes Provide Adequate
Protection?" San Diego Justice Journal (Winter
1993) 1(1):123.

National Criminal Justice Association, Regional
Seminar Series on Implementing Antistalking Codes,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Assistance, forthcoming 1996 (NCJ
156836).

National Criminal Justice Association, Project to
Develop a Model Antistalking Code for States,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, October 1993 (NCJ
144477).

National Criminal Justice Association, "Three
Courts Uphold Stalking Laws: Two States Clarify
Statutory Language," NCJA Justice Bulletin
(September 1994) 14(9):1-2, 12-14 (NCJ 153487). 

Patton, E.A., "Stalking Laws: In Pursuit of a
Remedy," Rutgers Law Journal (Winter 1994)
25(2):465-515.

Puente, M., "Legislators Tackling the Terror of
Stalking but Some Experts Say Measures Are Vague,"
USA Today (July 21, 1992) p. A9. 

Sohn, E.F., "Antistalking Statutes: Do They
Actually Protect Victims?" Criminal Law Bulletin
(May-June 1994) 30(3):203-241 (NCJ 148872).

Thomas, K.R., "How to Stop the Stalker: State
Antistalking Laws," Criminal Law Bulletin (March-
April 1993) 29(2):124-136.

Thompson, T., "When the Eager Lover Becomes the
Relentless Stalker," The Washington Post (April 17,
1994) 117(2):A1.

Tjaden, P., "Violence and Threats of Violence
Against Women in America," Center for Policy
Research, grant no. 93-IJ-CX-0012, forthcoming
January 1997.

Tucker, J.T., "Stalking the Problems with Stalking
Laws: The Effectiveness of Florida Statutes Section
784.048," Florida Law Review (September 1993)
45(4):609-707 (NCJ 15837).

U.S. Congress, "Introduction and Consultation of S.
15," Report on the Violence Against Women Act of
1991, 102nd Congress, 1st Session, October 29,
1991.

U.S. Congress, House Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the
Judiciary, "Crimes of Violence Motivated by Gender"
Hearing, November 16, 1993. 

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
"Antistalking Proposals: Hearings before the
Committee on the Judiciary," 103rd Congress, 1st
Session on Combating Stalking and Family Violence,
March 17, 1993 (NCJ 148572).

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
"Antistalking Legislation, Hearing September 29,
1992, on S.2922, A Bill To Assist the States in the
Enactment of Legislation to Address the Criminal
Act of Stalking Other Persons," 102nd Congress, 2nd
Session, September 29, 1992 (NCJ 148544).

Walker, J.M., "Antistalking Legislation: Does It
Protect the Victim Without Violating the Rights of
the Accused?" Denver University Law Review 1993;
71(1):273.

Zona, M.A., K.K. Sharma, and J. Lane, "Comparative
Study of Erotomanic and Obsessional Subjects in a
Forensic Sample," Journal of Forensic Sciences
(April 1993) 38(4):894-903 (NCJ 145759). 

For more information on the National Institute of
Justice, please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service
PO Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
800-851-3420
e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com

You can view or obtain an electronic version of
this document from the NCJRS Justice Information Center World
Wide Web site. 


To access the World Wide Web site, go to
http://ncjrs.aspensys.com:81/catalog.html

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included
in this ASCII plain text file. To order a print
copy, contact the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service at the above address.
