TABLE OF CONTENTS
     PREFACE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
     FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
     INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
               Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
               Scope of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
     CHAPTER 1:  STALKING AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN AMERICA. . . . . .9
               What is stalking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
               How much stalking is there? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
               Comparison with previous stalking estimates . . . . . . . 11
               Stalking risk for racial and ethnic minorities. . . . . . 12
               Who stalks whom?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
               How do stalkers harass and terrorize? . . . . . . . . . . 15
               How often do stalkers threaten overtly? . . . . . . . . . 17
               Why stalkers stalk their victims. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
               Relationship between stalking and other forms of violence 17
               How often is stalking reported to police? . . . . . . . . 20
               How often are stalkers criminally prosecuted? . . . . . . 21
               Obtaining protective or restraining orders against stalkers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
               What are the psychological and social consequences of stalking?23
               When and why does stalking stop?. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
               Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     CHAPTER 2:  FEDERAL AND STATE ANTISTALKING LEGISLATION . . . . 25
               Federal Antistalking Legislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
               State-by-State Analysis of Antistalking Statutes. . . . . 26
     Comparison of State Stalking Statutes to the NIJ Model Antistalking Law30
     Civil Law Injunctions and Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . 38
               New Challenges to State Antistalking Laws . . . . . . . . 42
               Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
     CHAPTER 3:  SENTENCING AND SUPERVISION OF STALKERS . . . . . . 44
               Scope of the Chapter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
               Uses and Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
               Sentencing Goals in Stalking Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . 45
               State Stalking Codes and Sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . 47
               Issues Affecting Sentencing and Supervision of Stalkers . 47
               Sentencing in Cases Involving Stalking. . . . . . . . . . 53
               Supervision in Stalking Cases
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
               Selected Sentencing and Supervision Strategies. . . . . . 56
               Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
     CHAPTER 4:  THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S RESPONSE
TO STALKING AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
               Research Investments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
               Support for State and Local Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . 64
               National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction Program (Stalker Reduction)66
               Indirect Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
               Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
     CHAPTER 5:  LOOKING AHEAD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
     NOTES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
APPENDIXES                            PREFACE
     The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), represents a giant step forward in our
country's response to violence against women, including domestic violence and stalking.  This
legislation has transformed the criminal justice system's efforts to address this serious problem,
making it a systemwide institutional priority.
     In unprecedented numbers, police officers, prosecutors, victim advocates, and members
of the judiciary are collaborating to leverage the coercive power of the criminal justice system to
ensure victim safety and to hold offenders accountable.  To help support their efforts, we at the
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs (OJP) are providing the tools and
resources to develop and implement service programs, and to fund basic research to expand our
knowledge and understanding of stalking and domestic violence.
     This annual report to Congress is part of our ongoing commitment to share information
about strategies that show promise in the field and research that enhances our understanding of
stalking and domestic violence.  It is produced in response to Subtitle F of the Violence Against
Women Act, which directs the Attorney General to submit an annual report on these issues.  In
Fiscal Year 1998, Congress also directed the Attorney General to include information in the
report concerning existing or proposed State laws and penalties for stalking crimes against
children.
     While our knowledge of domestic violence and stalking has grown exponentially, there is
much we still do not know.  Accordingly, OJP has committed significant resources through the
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to conduct research on effective strategies to stop violence
against women, including domestic violence and stalking.  NIJ is one of the cosponsors of the
National Violence Against Women Survey discussed in this report.  This survey provides some
evidence that State antistalking laws are making a difference.  Since enactment of these State
laws, the number of stalking cases reported to police has increased substantially.  Similarly, we at
the Department of Justice are vigorously enforcing the Federal antistalking statute by bringing
charges against stalkers in cases discussed in this report.  OJP remains committed to aggressively
addressing this problem on several fronts: by providing resources to communities across the
country, by supporting research to help us understand and develop more effective approaches for
responding to this crime, and by providing leadership to draw our Nation's attention to this
important issue.
     OJP thanks the many individuals involved in the preparation of this report for their time
and commitment.  The report was produced under the direction of OJP's Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Nol Brennan, and coordinated by VAWGO Administrator Kathy Schwartz.
It was edited and written in part by Preet Kang, VAWGO.  Special thanks to the staffs of OJP's
bureaus and offices, as well as the Office of Policy Development and the Violence Against
Women Office, for their assistance.  OJP also gratefully acknowledges the invaluable
contributions of the many criminal justice professionals and victim service providers contacted
for this report.
Laurie Robinson
Assistant Attorney General                            FOREWORD
     Passage of VAWA marked a major change in our national response to sexual assault,
stalking, and domestic violence, and in our attitude toward women. VAWA was the first Federal
law of its kind to recognize that gender-based crimes prevent women from being full participants
in society.
     This inequality is clear in stalking cases, where the majority of victims are women.  Since
the VAWA was enacted, we have seen significant progress in the investigation and prosecution
of stalkers, which has helped women become safer from these frightening and dangerous
perpetrators.  All, but particularly women, can take heart in knowing that we are committed to
enforcing the new Federal antistalking statute and have successfully prosecuted several stalking
cases.  The convictions obtained in these cases are sending a clear message that these perpetrators
can and will be sought out, found, and punished this behavior will no longer be tolerated in our
society.
     Last year our report focused on the law enforcement and prosecution aspects of stalking.
We reported that we had developed a better understanding of the types of stalkers and their
methods, and that law enforcement had acquired a better understanding of the seemingly
innocent but inherently dangerous techniques stalkers use.
     In this third annual report, the Department of Justice is again taking a close look at what
is being done nationally to address stalking.  Our focus this year is on sentencing and supervision
of convicted offenders.   As we continue to increase our knowledge about stalking and stalkers,
we are able to be more proactive in our enforcement efforts.  To do this, sentencing implications
must be explored and understood so that the most productive sentencing options can be used.
This is essential if we are to use every means possible to keep women safe.  In this regard, the
National Violence Against Women Survey completed by Pat Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes and
discussed in this report, is a good first step toward accumulating the data we need to understand
this crime.  It is essential, however, that we have more such studies, and the data those studies
can provide, to really make strides in crime prevention that will ensure that women remain safe
from stalkers.
     It is my fervent hope that this report, as well as the previous two, will be of use to
criminal justice practitioners, victim advocates, and all who work to save the lives of those
terrorized by this frightening crime.  We must continue to learn as much as we can about this
crime and those who perpetrate it.  Lives are at stake.  We cannot rest until everyone is safe.
Bonnie J. Campbell, Director
Violence Against Women Office
                          INTRODUCTION
     The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), represents the culmination of more than 2
decades of efforts by the women's movement to impose social and criminal sanctions against
those who perpetrate violence against women, including stalking, domestic violence, and sexual
assault.  Recognizing the devastating consequences this violence has on women, families, and
society as a whole, VAWA has brought this problem out of the shadows and into the center of
public debate.  This groundbreaking legislation transformed the legal landscape and social
attitudes in this country toward violence against women.
     This third annual report to Congress is submitted in response to Subtitle F of VAWA,
which states:
               The Attorney General shall submit to the Congress an annual report, beginning
     one year after the date of enactment of the Act, that provides information concerning the
     incidence of stalking and domestic violence, and evaluates the effectiveness of
     antistalking efforts and legislation.
     In addition, in the Department of Justice's Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998,
Congress directed that:
               The Attorney General shall include in an annual report under section 40610 of the
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14039) information
     concerning existing or proposed State laws and penalties for stalking crimes against
     children.
                           Background
     The passage of VAWA notwithstanding, domestic violence and stalking continue to be
significant problems facing our society.  As reported in the first and second annual reports to
Congress, because these social problems have gone unacknowledged for so long in this country,
until recently there has been a dearth of reliable information about addressing or preventing
domestic violence and stalking effectively.  This knowledge deficit is particularly acute for
stalking.
     Although there is greater interest in this issue as a result of the passage of VAWA,
research in this field is still in its infancy. Some of the earliest research focused on stalkers who
had come to the attention of the criminal justice system. This nonrandom sample
underrepresented stalkers who had a prior intimate relationship with their victims, in part because
of the legal system's inclination to arrest and prosecute higher profile cases involving strangers
and a general hesitance to prosecute cases involving domestic violence.  This systemic bias,
combined with the enormous media attention accorded cases involving celebrities, created an
impression that stalking is largely a crime involving strangers, generally with a public figure as
the victim.  Subsequent national surveys have revealed, however, that stalking most often occurs
in an intimate-partner context.  Therefore, to develop appropriate responses and prevention
strategies, this crime must be examined and understood in all its contexts.
     Throughout this decade, behaviors generally associated with stalking obsessive, repeated
following and harassment have received considerable attention from public policymakers and
have led to the enactment of laws in every State.  This in turn has generated considerable interest
in learning more about all aspects of stalking, including the  identity and motivation of
perpetrators.  While there are now many more variations as research increases, generally stalkers
are classified in one of three broad categories based on their relationship with the victim:
                    Intimate or former intimate stalking: The stalker and victim may be married or
          divorced, current or former cohabitants, serious or casual sexual partners, or
          former sexual partners.  A history of domestic violence may exist.
                    Acquaintance stalking: The stalker and victim may know each other casually,
          either through formal or informal contact.  For example, they may be coworkers or
          neighbors, or they may have dated once or twice but were not sexual partners.
                    Stranger stalking: The stalker and victim do not know each other at all.  Cases
          involving celebrities and other public figures generally fall into this category.
     Some researchers have established classification systems that are based on the
motivations and mental capacity of stalkers.  None of these classifications, however, provides a
reliable indicator of a stalker's capacity for potential violence against the victim.  It is estimated
that stalkers are violent toward their victims between 25 and 35 percent of the time, and the
group most likely to be violent is composed of those who have had an intimate relationship with
the victim.  Nearly one-third of all women killed in this country die at the hands of a current or
former intimate.  Although no national figures are available, it is estimated that between 29 and
54 percent of female murder victims are battered women.  A significant number of these
murders and attempted murders of women are believed to be preceded by stalking.
     Further, very little information is available on who will or won't become a stalker,
particularly in cases involving strangers or acquaintances.  In instances of stalking involving
intimates, researchers at the University of Washington found that batterers who are insecure and
fearful of abandonment are more likely to become obsessed and stalk their victims upon
separation than other types of batterers.  Numerous studies indicate that separation is the most
dangerous period for victims of domestic violence.  Fearing loss of control over their victims,
batterers often escalate their abuse when their victims seek to escape.
     In the National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey, discussed in Chapter 1,
victims cited the stalkers' desire to control them as the most frequent reason for the stalking
behavior.  Only a small percentage of the victims surveyed cited mental illness or substance
abuse as the reason for the stalking.  The survey corroborated what domestic violence victim
advocates had long suspected there is a strong link between stalking and abusive behavior in
intimate relationships.  Moreover, stalking by intimates or former intimates lasts significantly
longer than stalking involving non-intimates.
     The NVAW Survey also provided evidence of the positive impact of State antistalking
laws:  More victims are coming forward and reporting these crimes; however, the laws do not
appear to have made a significant impact on law enforcement's response to these crimes.  The
number of arrests remained about the same before and after enactment of these State laws.
Overall, the percentage of stalking cases prosecuted was quite small, but in nearly half the
prosecuted cases, the perpetrator was convicted, and two-thirds of these convictions resulted in a
jail or prison term.
     An OJP-commissioned anecdotal survey of criminal justice practitioners found that
stalkers continue to be charged and sentenced under harassment, intimidation, or other related
laws instead of under a State's antistalking statute.  This survey, as well as the NVAW Survey,
found that criminal justice officials still do not fully understand and, therefore, continue to
underestimate the potential dangerousness of stalkers to their victims.  The results of both
surveys underscore the need to provide comprehensive training to judges, prosecutors, law
enforcement officers, probation and parole officers, and others in the criminal justice system who
are involved in managing stalking cases.  It is critical that all components of the system
coordinate their efforts both within and among each other to ensure that victims are kept safe and
offenders are held accountable.
                      Scope of the Report
     In the Attorney General's first annual report to Congress, domestic violence and stalking
were discussed broadly, and key areas for additional research were identified.  In response to
these knowledge gaps, the Department of Justice commissioned several studies.  The second
annual report to Congress reported on preliminary results of the NVAW Survey, sponsored
jointly by NIJ and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  The survey revealed
that stalking was a bigger problem than previously estimated.  The second report also included
anecdotal information about how police officers, prosecutors, and victim service providers were
responding to these crimes.  The criminal justice system practitioners contacted for this informal
survey indicated that their approach to stalking was to pursue the case aggressively at the outset,
so that the seriousness of the crime wasn't allowed to rise to the level that would trigger the
State's antistalking statute.  Moving along the case processing continuum within the criminal
justice system, this year's report includes information regarding sentencing and supervision
strategies being pursued by some jurisdictions to address stalking and domestic violence.
     In addition to the results of the NVAW Survey and the anecdotal survey of practitioners,
the third annual report has a chapter on the status of State and Federal antistalking legislation,
including a State-by-State review of statutes as they pertain to minors and other issues.  Chapter
4 of the report focuses on the Department of Justice's efforts to respond to stalking and domestic
violence.  The report concludes with recommendations for next steps to address stalking and
domestic violence.
     Appendix A lists stalking code citations and constitutional challenges, if any, for each
State.  Appendix B outlines State criminal and civil laws covering stalking by level of offense;
Appendix C presents State harassment and threat laws by level of offense.  Appendix D
summarizes State harassment and other laws closely related to stalking.  Appendix E lists a few
stalking-related websites on the Internet.  Appendix F updates the selected bibliography on
stalking, and Appendix G contains a list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of criminal
justice professionals and victim service providers contacted for the anecdotal survey.
                           CHAPTER 1
           STALKING AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN AMERICA
     Unprecedented interest in stalking over the past decade has produced media accounts of
stalking victims, passage of antistalking laws in all 50 States and the District of Columbia,
and development of a model antistalking code.  Despite this interest, research on stalking has
been limited to studies of small, unrepresentative, or clinical samples of known stalkers; law
journal reviews of the constitutionality and effectiveness of specific antistalking statutes; and
case studies of individual stalkers.  Thus, empirical data have been lacking on such fundamental
questions about stalking as:
     How much stalking is there in the United States?
     Who stalks whom?
     How often do stalkers overtly threaten their victims?
     How often is stalking reported to the police?
          What are the psychological and social consequences of stalking?
     This chapter presents data from the first-ever national study on stalking and addresses
these and related questions.  The data are from the National Violence Against Women (NVAW)
Survey, a nationally representative telephone survey of 8,000 U.S. women and 8,000 U.S. men.
The survey, which asked detailed questions about respondents' experiences with violence,
including stalking, was sponsored jointly by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through a grant to the Center for Policy
Research.
What is stalking?
     Stalking generally refers to harassing or threatening behavior that an individual engages
in repeatedly, such as following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business,
making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's
property.  These actions may or may not be accompanied by a credible threat of serious harm,
and they may or may not be precursors to an assault or murder.
     Legal definitions of stalking vary widely from State to State.  Though most States define
stalking as the willful, malicious, and repeated following and harassing of another person, some
States include in their definition such activities as lying-in-wait, surveillance, nonconsensual
communication, telephone harassment, and vandalism.  While most States require that the
alleged stalker engage in a course of conduct showing that the crime was not an isolated event,
some States specify how many acts (usually two or more) must occur before the conduct can be
considered stalking.  State stalking laws also vary in their threat and fear requirements. Most
stalking laws require that the perpetrator, to qualify as a stalker, make a credible threat of
violence against the victim; others include in their requirements threats against the victim's
immediate family; and still others require only that the alleged stalker's course of conduct
constitute an implied threat.
     The definition of stalking used in the NVAW Survey closely resembles the definition of
stalking used in the model antistalking code for States developed by the NIJ.  The survey
defines stalking as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated visual
or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written or implied threats, or a
combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear," with repeated meaning on two
or more occasions.  The model antistalking code does not require stalkers to make a credible
threat of violence against victims, but it does require victims to feel a high level of fear ("fear of
bodily harm").  Similarly, the definition of stalking used in the NVAW Survey does not require
stalkers to make a credible threat against victims, but it does require victims to feel a high level
of fear.
How much stalking is there?
     In the NVAW Survey, stalking victimization was measured in terms of lifetime
prevalence and annual prevalence.  Lifetime prevalence refers to the percentage of persons within
a demographic group (e.g., male or female) who were stalked sometime in their lifetime.  Annual
prevalence refers to the percentage of persons within a demographic group who were stalked
sometime in the 12 months preceding the survey.
     Using a definition of stalking that requires victims to feel a high level of fear, the NVAW
Survey found that 8 percent of women and 2 percent of men in the United States have been
stalked at some time in their life.
     Based on U.S. Census estimates of the number of women and men in the country, 1 out of
every 12 U.S. women (8.2 million) has been stalked at some time in her life, and 1 out of every
45 U.S. men (2 million) has been stalked at some time in his life (see exhibit 1).
Exhibit 1.  Percentage and Estimated Number of Men and Women Stalked in Lifetime
                              Persons Stalked in Lifetime
 Group                   Percentage(a)       Estimated Number(b)
 Men (N = 8,000)              2.2            2,040,460
 Women (N = 8,000)            8.1            8,156,460
a. Differences between men and women are significant at  .001.
b. Based on estimates of men and women aged 18 years and older, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population
Survey, 1995.
     Ninety percent of the stalking victims identified by the survey were stalked by just one
person during their life.  Nine percent of female victims and 8 percent of male victims were
stalked by two different persons, and 1 percent of female victims and 2 percent of male victims
were stalked by three different persons.
     The survey also found that 1 percent of all women surveyed and 0.4 percent of all men
surveyed were stalked during the 12 months preceding the survey.  These findings equate to an
estimated 1,006,970 women and an estimated 370,990 men who are stalked annually in the
United States (see exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2.  Percentage and Estimated Number of Men and Women Stalked
in Previous 12 Months
                         Persons Stalked in Previous 12 Months
 Group              Percentage(a)       Estimated Number(b)
 Men (N = 8,000)         0.4               370,990
 Women (N = 8,000)       1.0            1,006,970
a. Differences between men and women are significant at  .001.
b. Based on estimates of men and women aged 18 years and older, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population
Survey, 1995.
     The average annual estimates of stalking victimization generated by the survey are
relatively high compared to the average lifetime estimates.  Two factors account for this finding.
The first has to do with the age of the population most at risk of being stalked.  The survey found
that 74 percent of stalking victims are between 18 and 39 years old.  Since men and women
between 18 and 39 years comprise nearly half (47 percent) the adult population from which the
sample was drawn, a large proportion of men and women in the survey sample were at risk of
being stalked in the 12 months preceding the interview.  As the proportion of the U.S. population
aged 18 39 years declines, so should the number of persons stalked annually.  However, the
lifetime estimates of stalking victimization should remain relatively constant.
     Another reason annual estimates of stalking victimization are relatively high compared to
lifetime rates is that stalking, by definition, involves repeated and ongoing victimization.  Thus,
some men and women are stalked for months or years on end.  Because some men and women
are stalked from one year to the next, the average annual estimates of stalking victimization
cannot be added to produce an estimate of the total number of men and women who will be
stalked in two, three, or more years.  Thus, average annual rates of stalking victimization will
appear higher than expected when compared to lifetime rates of stalking victimization.
Comparison with previous stalking estimates
     Prior to this study, information on stalking prevalence was limited to guesses provided by
mental health professionals based on their work with known stalkers.  The most frequently cited
"guesstimates" of stalking prevalence were made by forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz, who in
1992 reported that 5 percent of U.S. women are stalked at some time in their life and
approximately 200,000 U.S. women are stalked each year.  Thus, the NVAW Survey's estimate
that 8 percent of U.S. women have been stalked at some time in their life is 1.6 times greater than
Dietz's guesstimate, and the survey's estimate that 1,006,970 U.S. women are stalked annually is
5 times greater than Deitz's guesstimate.
     How prevalent is stalking compared to other forms of violence against women in the
United States?  The NVAW Survey found that 0.3 percent of all women surveyed experienced a
completed or attempted rape in the 12 months preceding the survey, and 1.9 percent experienced
a physical assault in the 12 months preceding the survey (see exhibit 3).  Thus, in a 1-year period,
women are three times more likely to be stalked than raped, but they are two times as likely to be
physically assaulted than stalked.
Exhibit 3.  Percentage of Men and Women Victimized in Previous 12 Months, by Type of
Violence
                    Persons Victimized in Previous 12 Months (%)
 Type of                 Men            Women
 Violence                     (N = 8,000)         (N = 8,000)
Rape                     <0.1(a)             0.3
Physical assault              3.4            1.9
Stalking                 0.4            1.0
Any of the above              3.9            3.0
a. Based on five or fewer cases.
     If a less stringent definition of stalking is used one requiring victims to feel only
somewhat frightened or a little frightened by their assailant's behavior stalking prevalence rates
rise dramatically.  Specifically, the lifetime stalking prevalence rate increases from 8 percent to
12 percent for women and from 2 percent to 4 percent for men; and the annual stalking
prevalence rate increases from 1 percent to 6 percent for women and from 0.4 percent to 1.5
percent for men.  Based on these higher prevalence rates, an estimated 12.1 million U.S. women
and 3.7 million U.S. men are stalked at some time in their life; and 6 million women and 1.4
million men are stalked annually in the United States.  These results show how stalking
prevalence varies with the level of fear included in the definition.  A higher standard of fear
produces lower prevalence rates, and a lower standard of fear produces higher prevalence rates.
Stalking risk for racial and ethnic minorities
     Information from the NVAW Survey presents a complex picture of stalking, race, and
ethnicity.  When data on African-American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific
Islander, and mixed-race women are combined, there is no difference in stalking prevalence
between white women and minority women:  8.2 percent of white women (see exhibit 4) and 8.2
percent of nonwhite women (not shown) reported ever being stalked in their lifetime.  However,
a comparison of stalking prevalence across specific racial and ethnic groupings shows that
American Indian/Alaska Native women report significantly more stalking victimization than
women of other racial and ethnic backgrounds (see exhibit 4).  This finding should be viewed
with caution, however, given the small number of American Indian/Alaska Native women in the
sample.  This finding also underscores the need for specificity when comparing prevalence rates
among women of different racial or ethnic backgrounds.
Exhibit 4.  Percentage of Men and Women Stalked in Lifetime, by Race and Ethnicity of Victim
                         Persons Stalked in Lifetime (%)
                                             Asian/         American
                                   African-  Pacific        Indian/             Mixed
     Group          Total          White          American  Islander  Alaska Native       Race
     Men       (N=7,759) (N=6,424) (N=659)   (N=165)   (N=105)        (N=406)
               2.3       2.1       2.4       1.8(a)         4.8            3.9
     Women(b)  (N=7,850) (N=6,452) (N=780)   (N=133)   (N=88)              (N=397)
               8.2       8.2       6.5       4.5       17.0           10.6
a. Based on five or fewer cases.
b. Differences between racial and ethnic groups are significant at  .05.
     Since information on violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women is
limited, it is difficult to explain why they report more stalking victimization.  A previous study
found that the overall homicide rates for Native Americans were about two times greater than
U.S. national rates.  Thus, there is some evidence that Native Americans are at significantly
greater risk of violence fatal and nonfatal than other Americans.  How much of the variance
in stalking prevalence may be explained by demographic, social, and environmental factors
remains unclear and requires further study.  Moreover, there may be significant differences in
stalking prevalence among women of diverse American Indian tribes and Alaska Native
communities that cannot be determined from the survey, since data on all Native Americans were
combined.
     There is some evidence that Asian and Pacific Islander women are at significantly less
risk of being stalked than women of other racial and ethnic backgrounds (see exhibit 4).  Again,
however, given the small number of Asian/Pacific Islander women in the sample, this finding
must be viewed with caution.  It has been suggested that traditional Asian values emphasizing
close family ties and harmony may discourage Asian women from disclosing physical and
emotional abuse by intimate partners.  Thus, the smaller stalking prevalence rate found among
Asian/Pacific Islander women may be, at least in part, an artifact of underreporting.  There may
also be a significant difference in stalking prevalence between Asian women and Pacific Islander
women that cannot be determined from the survey, since data on these two groups were
combined.
     The survey found no significant difference in stalking prevalence among men of different
racial and ethnic backgrounds.  This finding must also be viewed with caution, given the
sample's small number of male victims falling into specific racial and ethnic groupings.  A larger
sample of male stalking victims is needed to produce more reliable information on the relative
risk of stalking among men of different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
     The survey found no significant difference in stalking prevalence among men and women
of Hispanic and non-Hispanic origin (see exhibit 5).  Since previous studies comparing the
prevalence of violence among Hispanic and non-Hispanic women have produced contradictory
conclusions, these findings neither confirm nor contradict earlier findings.
Exhibit 5.  Percentage of  Men and Women Stalked in Lifetime, by Hispanic/Non-Hispanic
Origin of Victim
                         Persons Stalked in Lifetime (%)
 Group         Total          Hispanic(a)    Non-Hispanic
 Men           (N=7,916) (N=581)   (N=7,335)
               2.2       3.3       2.1
 Women         (N=7,945) (N=628)   (N=7,317)
               8.1       7.6       8.2
a. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Who stalks whom?
     Though stalking is a gender-neutral crime, women are the primary victims of stalking and
men are the primary perpetrators.  Seventy-eight percent of the stalking victims identified by the
survey were women, and 22 percent were men. Thus, four out of five stalking victims are
women.  By comparison, 94 percent of the stalkers identified by female victims and 60 percent of
the stalkers identified by male victims were male.  Overall, 87 percent of the stalkers identified
by victims were male.
     Young adults are also the primary targets of stalkers.  Fifty-two percent of the stalking
victims were 18 29 years old and 22 percent were 30 39 years old when the stalking started (see
exhibit 6).  On average, victims were 28 years old when the stalking started.
     The survey confirms previous reports that most victims know their stalker. Only 23
percent of female victims and 36 percent of male victims were stalked by strangers. The survey
also indicates that women tend to be stalked by intimate partners, defined as current or former
spouses, current or former cohabitants (of the same or opposite sex), or current or former
boyfriends or girlfriends. Thirty-eight percent of female stalking victims were stalked by current
or former husbands, 10 percent by current or former cohabiting partners, and 14 percent by
current or former dates or boyfriends.  Overall, 59 percent of female victims, compared with 30
percent of male victims, were stalked by some type of  intimate partner (see exhibit 7).
     It has been reported previously that when women are stalked by intimate partners, the
stalking typically occurs after the woman attempts to leave the relationship.  To test this
assumption, the NVAW Survey asked women who had been stalked by former husbands or
partners when in the relationship the stalking occurred.  Twenty-one percent of these victims said
the stalking occurred before the relationship ended, 43 percent said it occurred after the
relationship ended, and 36 percent said it occurred both before and after the relationship ended
(see exhibit 8).  Thus, contrary to popular opinion, women are often stalked by intimate partners
while the relationship is still intact.
     The survey found that men tend to be stalked by strangers and acquaintances (see exhibit
7), 90 percent of whom are male.  It is unclear from the survey data why men are stalked by male
strangers and male acquaintances.  There is some evidence that homosexual men are at greater
risk of being stalked than heterosexual men: Stalking prevalence was significantly greater among
men who had ever lived with a man as a couple compared with men who had never lived with a
man as a couple (see exhibit 9).  Thus, in some stalking cases involving male victims and
stranger or acquaintance perpetrators, the perpetrator may be motivated by hatred toward
homosexuals, while in others the perpetrator may be motivated by sexual attraction.  It is also
possible that some men are stalked by male strangers and male acquaintances in the context of
inter- or intragroup gang rivalries.  Clearly, more research is needed to determine under what
circumstances men are stalked by male strangers and male acquaintances.
     Although men tend to be stalked by strangers and acquaintances, women are at
significantly greater risk of being stalked by strangers and acquaintances than men.  A
comparison of stalking prevalence among women and men by victim-offender relationship shows
that 1.8 percent of all U.S. women, compared with 0.8 percent of all U.S. men, have been stalked
by strangers; and 1.6 percent of all U.S. women, compared with 0.8 percent of all U.S. men, have
been stalked by acquaintances (see exhibit 10).
How do stalkers harass and terrorize?
     When asked to describe specific activities their stalkers engaged in to harass and terrorize
them, women were significantly more likely than men to report that their stalkers followed them,
spied on them, or stood outside their home or place of work or recreation (see exhibit 11).
Women were also significantly more likely to report that their stalkers made unsolicited phone
calls.  About equal percentages of female and male victims reported that their stalkers sent them
unwanted letters or items, vandalized their property, or killed or threatened to kill a family pet
(see exhibit 11).
Exhibit 9.  Percentage of Men Stalked in Lifetime, by Whether They Ever Cohabited with a
Man
                         Cohabitation Experience
Men Stalked/        Cohabited with a Man          Never Cohabited with a Man
Not  Stalked in          (N=65)                   (N=7,935)
Lifetime(a)              %                        %
Stalked             7.7(b)                        2.2
Not stalked              92.3                     97.8
a. Differences between men who "cohabited" and "never cohabited" are significant at < .01.
b. Based on five or fewer cases.
Exhibit 10.  Percentage of Men and Women Stalked in Lifetime, by Victim-Offender
Relationship
                         Persons Stalked in Lifetime (%)
 Victim-Offender                   Men            Women
 Relationship                      (N=8,000)      (N=8,000)
Intimate(a)                        0.6            4.8
Relative                      0.1(b)              0.3
Acquaintance(a)                    0.8            1.6
Stranger(a)                        0.8            1.8
a. Differences between men and women are significant at  .05.
b. Based on five or fewer cases.
How often do stalkers threaten overtly?
     Many State antistalking laws include in their definition of stalking a requirement that
stalkers make an overt threat of violence against their victim.  Survey findings suggest that this
requirement may be ill-advised. By definition, stalking victims in this survey were either very
frightened of their assailant's behavior or feared their assailant would seriously harm or kill them
or someone close to them.  Despite the high level of fear required, the survey found that less than
half the victims both male and female were directly threatened by their stalker (see exhibit
12).  This finding shows that stalkers do not always threaten their victim verbally or in writing;
more often they engage in a course of conduct that, taken in context, causes a reasonable person
to feel fearful.  The model antistalking code reflects this reality by not including in its definition
of stalking a requirement that the stalker make a credible threat of violence against the victim.
Why stalkers stalk their victims
     To generate information on motivations for stalking, the survey asked victims why they
thought they had been stalked.  Since stalking occurs in a variety of situations and between
people who have various relationships, it is not surprising that responses to this question varied.
Based on victims' perceptions of why they were stalked, it appears that much stalking is
motivated by stalkers' desire to control, or instill fear in, their victim (see exhibit 13).  The
survey results dispel the myth that most stalkers are psychotic or delusional.  Only 7 percent of
the victims said they were stalked because their stalkers were mentally ill or abusing drugs or
alcohol.
Relationship between stalking and other forms of violence
     The NVAW Survey provides compelling evidence of the link between stalking and other
forms of violence in intimate relationships.  Eighty-one percent of the women who were stalked
by a current or former husband or cohabiting partner were also physically assaulted by the same
partner, and 31 percent of the women who were stalked by a current or former husband or
cohabiting partner were also sexually assaulted by the same  partner. By comparison, 20 percent
of the women who were ever married or ever lived with a man were physically assaulted by a
current or former husband or partner, and 5 percent of women who were ever married or ever
lived with a man were sexually assaulted by a current or former husband or partner.  Thus,
husbands or partners who stalk their partners are four times more likely than husbands or partners
in the general population to physically assault their partners, and they are six times more likely
than husbands and partners in the general population to sexually assault their partners.
     The survey also provides compelling evidence of the link between stalking and
controlling and emotionally abusive behavior in intimate relationships. To provide a context for
violence occurring between intimate partners, respondents to the survey were asked a series of
questions about controlling and emotionally abusive behavior they experienced at the hands of
their current or former spouses or cohabiting partners.  The survey found that ex-husbands who
stalked (either before or after the relationship ended) were significantly more likely than ex-
husbands who did not stalk to engage in emotionally abusive and controlling behavior toward
their wife (see exhibit 14 for details).
Exhibit 14.  Percentage of Ex-Husbands Who Engaged in Emotionally Abusive or
Controlling Behavior, by Whether They Stalked(a)
                                   Ex-Husbands Who     Ex-Husbands Who
 Types of Emotionally Abusive/               Stalked (%)         Did Not Stalk (%)
 Controlling Behavior(b)                (N=166)        (N=2,645)
Had a hard time seeing things
from her point of view                  87.7           57.8
Was jealous or possessive                    83.7           46.3
Tried to provoke arguments                   90.3           45.3
Tried to limit her contact with family and friends     77.1           32.3
Insisted on knowing where she was at all times    80.7           34.4
Made her feel inadequate                85.5           40.9
Shouted or swore at her                 88.0           44.5
Frightened her                     92.2           33.1
Prevented her from knowing about or having
access to family income                 59.6           20.8
Prevented her from working outside the home  30.7           13.0
Insisted on changing residences even when
she didn't need or want to                   33.9           11.9
a.   Based on responses for first ex-husbands only.
     b.   Differences between ex-husbands who stalked and ex-husbands who did not stalk are
     significant at  .001.
              Violence Among Intimates in America
A report* produced by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) indicated that women
make up the vast majority of victims in crimes involving intimate** violence.  This report, which is a
compilation of data from the National Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI's Uniform Crime
Reporting Program, revealed the following:
          Women were more likely than men to have been murdered by an intimate.  In 1996, nearly 2,000
     murders were committed by intimates, and in almost 3 out of 4 of these killings, the victim was a
     woman.
          Each year, approximately 30 percent of all women killed in this country die at the hands of a
     current or former intimate, compared to 6 percent of men.  The intimate murder rate for men has
     been sharply decreasing, dropping from 1,357 in 1976 to 516 in 1996.
          In 1996, women were victimized by intimates in about 840,000 incidents of rape, sexual assault,
     robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.  By contrast, men were victims of about 150,000
     violent crimes committed by an intimate.  (On average, about a million women are victimized by
     an intimate each year.)
          The highest per capita rates of intimate violence were among women aged 16-24, paralleling the
     findings of the NVAW Survey, which revealed that more younger women were victims of
     stalking.
          Approximately half the incidents of intimate violence against women were reported to the police.
     These figures are similar to the findings of the NVAW Survey in which roughly half the stalking
     victims reported the crime to the authorities.
          The three most common reasons offered for not reporting the crime were that the incident was
     considered a private or personal matter, fear of offender reprisals, and a perception that law
     enforcement would not or could not assist.  Again, these explanations virtually mirror the findings
     of the NVAW Survey.
_____________________
     * Copies of this report, "Violence by Intimates," can be obtained from the BJS Internet Web site:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ or by calling (800) 732-3277 and requesting publication NCJ #167237.
     **Intimates can be spouses, ex-spouses, boyfriends, girlfriends, ex-boyfriends, and ex-girlfriends.
How often is stalking reported to police?
     Fifty-five percent of female victims and 48 percent of male victims said their stalking was
reported to the police.  In most of these cases, the victims made the report (see exhibit 15).  The
percentage of women reporting stalking is identical to the percentage of female victims reporting
lone-offender violent crimes to police during 1987 89, as measured by the National Crime
Victimization Survey.
     Police responses to stalking cases involving male victims and female victims were
virtually identical, with two notable exceptions: Police were significantly more likely to arrest or
detain a suspect in cases involving female victims, and they were significantly more likely to
refer female victims to services (see exhibit 15).
 Exhibit 15.  Percentage and Characteristics of Stalking Cases Reported to the Police, by
Sex of Victim
                                        Stalking Victims (%)
 Reported to Police/Response            Male      Female    Total
Was case reported to the police?             (N=178)   (N=641)   (N=819)
    Yes                                 47.7      54.6      53.1
     No                                 52.3      45.4      46.9
 Who reported the case?(a)                   (N=84)    (N=350)   (N=434)
   Victim                          75.0      84.0      82.3
   Other                           25.0      16.0      17.7
 Police Response(a)(b)                  (N=84)    (N=350)   (N=434)
   Took report                          66.7      68.6      68.0
   Arrested or detained perpetrator(c)            16.7      25.1      23.5
   Referred to prosecutor or court           19.0      24.3      23.3
   Referred to victim services(c)              8.3          15.1      13.8
   Gave advice on self-protective measures        29.8      34.0      33.2
   Did nothing                          16.7      19.4      18.9
a.   Based on responses from victims whose stalking was reported to the police.
b.   Percentages exceed 100 percent because of multiple responses.
c.   Differences between males and females are significant at  .05.
There is some evidence that stalking reports to the police by victims have increased since passage
of antistalking laws.  According to information from the survey, stalking cases occurring before
1990 the year California passed the Nation's first antistalking law were significantly less
likely to be reported to the police than stalking cases occurring after 1995, the year by which all
50 States and the District of Columbia had laws proscribing stalking.  There was no significant
difference, however, in the number of arrests made in stalking cases that occurred before 1990
and those that occurred after 1995.  When asked why they chose not to report their stalking to the
police, victims were most likely to state that their stalking was not a police matter, they thought
the police would not be able to do anything, or they feared reprisals from their stalkers (see
exhibit 16).
     Overall, stalking victims gave police a 50/50 approval rating (see exhibit 17).
Respondents who said their stalkers were arrested were significantly more likely to be satisfied
with the way the police handled their case than respondents who said their stalkers were not
arrested (76 percent versus 42 percent).
     Victims who thought the police "should have done more" in their cases were asked to
describe what specific actions they thought the police should have taken.  Forty-two percent
thought the police should have put the assailant in jail, 20 percent said the police should have
taken the situation more seriously, and 16 percent said the police should have done more to
protect them (see exhibit 18).
How often are stalkers criminally prosecuted?
     Overall, 13 percent of female victims and 9 percent of male victims reported that their
stalkers were criminally prosecuted (see exhibit 19).  These figures increase to 24 percent and 19
percent, respectively, when only those cases with police reports are considered.  The stalkers
were charged with a wide variety of crimes, including stalking, harassment, menacing or
threatening, vandalism, trespassing, breaking and entering, robbery, disorderly conduct,
intimidation, and simple and aggravated assault.  Survey participants reported that about half the
stalkers (54 percent) who had criminal charges filed against them were convicted of a crime.  Of
those convicted, nearly two-thirds (63 percent) were believed to have been sent to jail or prison.
Obtaining protective or restraining orders against stalkers
     Results from the survey also indicate that female victims were significantly more likely
than male victims (28 percent and 10 percent) to obtain a protective or restraining order against a
stalker (see exhibit 20).  This finding is expected, since women are significantly more likely than
men to be stalked by intimate partners who have a history of being violent toward them.  Of
those who obtained restraining orders, 69 percent of the women and 81 percent of the men said
the stalker violated the order.
Exhibit 19.  Percentage and Outcomes of Criminal Prosecutions in Stalking Cases, by Sex
of Victim
                                   Stalking Victims (%)
 Outcome                      Male      Female    Total
Was perpetrator prosecuted?             (N=178)   (N=645)   (N=823)
   Yes                               9.0          13.1      12.1
   No                              91.0      86.9      87.9
 Was perpetrator convicted?(a)          (N=15)    (N=72)    (N=87)
   Yes                             60.0      52.8      54.0
   No                              40.0      47.2      46.0
Was perpetrator sentenced to
jail or prison?(b)                 (N=9)          (N=37)    (N=46)
   Yes                             77.8      59.5      63.0
   No                              22.2(c)   40.5      37.0
a.  Based on responses from victims whose perpetrator was prosecuted.
b.  Based on responses from victims whose perpetrator was convicted.
c.  Based on five or fewer sample cases.
Exhibit 20.  Percentage and Outcomes of Protective Orders in Stalking Cases, by Sex of
Victim
                              Stalking Victims (%)
 Outcome                 Male           Female         Total
Did victim obtain a protective or
 restraining order?(a)             (N=175)        (N=597)        (N=772)
   Yes                          9.7               28.0           23.8
   No                         90.3           72.0           76.2
 Was the order violated?(a)(b)     (N=16)         (N=166)        (N=182)
   Yes                        81.3           68.7           69.8
   No                         18.7           31.3           30.2
a.  Differences between males and females are significant at  .05.
b.  Based on responses from victims who obtained a restraining order.
What are the psychological and social consequences of stalking?
     The survey produced strong confirmation of the negative mental health impact of
stalking.  About a third of the women (30 percent) and a fifth of the men (20 percent) said they
sought psychological counseling as a result of the stalking victimization.  In addition, stalking
victims were significantly more likely than nonstalking victims to be very concerned about their
personal safety and about being stalked, to carry something on their person to defend themselves,
and to think personal safety for men and women had gotten worse in recent years (see exhibit
21).
     Over a quarter (26 percent) of the stalking victims said the victimization caused them to
lose time from work.  While the survey did not query victims about why they lost time from
work, it can be assumed they missed work for a variety of reasons to attend court hearings, to
meet with a psychologist or other mental health professional, to avoid contact with the assailant,
and to consult with an attorney.  When asked how many days of work they lost, 7 percent of
these victims said they never returned to work.  On average, however, victims who lost time from
and returned to work missed 11 days.
     Stalking victims were asked whether they took any measures (other than reporting their
victimization to the police or obtaining a protective order) to protect themselves from the stalker.
Fifty-six percent of the women and 51 percent of the men reported taking some type of self-
protective measure (see exhibit 22).
When and why does stalking stop?
     At the time of the interview, 92 percent of the victims were no longer being stalked.
Based on information provided by these victims, about two-thirds of all stalking cases last a year
or less, about a quarter last 2 5 years, and about a tenth last more than 5 years (see exhibit 23).
On average, stalking cases last 1.8 years.  However, stalking cases involving intimates or former
intimates last, on average, significantly longer than stalking cases involving nonintimates (2.2
years and 1.1 years, respectively).
     Victims who were no longer being stalked at the time of the interview were asked why
they thought the stalking had ceased; 19 percent said the stalking stopped because they (the
victims) moved away (see exhibit 24).  These findings suggest that address confidentiality
programs may be an effective means of combating stalking.  Such programs encourage victims
who face continued pursuit and unusual safety risks to develop a personal safety plan that
includes relocating as far from the stalker as possible and securing a confidential mailing address
that provides mail-forwarding service but does not reveal the victim's new location.
     Some stalking cases are resolved when the perpetrator gets a new love interest.  Eighteen
percent of the victims said the stalking stopped because the assailant got a new spouse, partner,
or boyfriend/girlfriend.
     It has been reported previously that informal law enforcement interventions, such as
detective contacts, can be an effective means of deterring stalkers, particularly in cases where the
victim and the suspect had some prior relationship and where the stalker is not suffering from
mental illness.   Findings from the NVAW Survey provide some support for this theory.
Victims were more likely to credit informal, rather than formal, justice system interventions for
the cessation of the stalking.  For example, 15 percent of victims said the stalking stopped after
their assailants received a warning from the police.  By comparison, only 9 percent of victims
said the stalking ceased because the stalker was arrested, 1 percent said the stalking stopped
because the stalker was convicted of a crime, and less than 1 percent said the stalking stopped
because they obtained a restraining order against the stalker.  The fact that so few victims
credited formal justice system interventions is not surprising, given the paucity of arrests,
criminal prosecutions, and restraining orders in stalking cases.
Conclusion
     The results of the NVAW Survey clearly indicate that stalking is much more prevalent
than previously thought and should be treated as a significant social problem.  An estimated 8
percent of women and 2 percent of men in the U.S. have been stalked at some point during their
lifetime.  While stalkers can be men or women, an overwhelming majority are male.  Moreover,
women are significantly more likely than men to be stalked by an intimate, such as a husband,
cohabiting partner, or date. The survey also revealed a strong link between stalking and domestic
violence.  Intimates who stalk their partners are also more likely to physically and sexually
assault their victims prior to the termination of the relationship.  What's more, stalking cases
involving current or former intimates last longer than those involving nonintimates.
     Stalkers employed a variety of activities to harass and terrorize their victims, but less than
half the victims were overtly threatened, underscoring the need to eliminate the requirement in
many State antistalking statutes that the stalker issue a credible threat of violence against the
victim. This absence of overt threats complicates effective management of stalking cases by the
criminal justice system and contributes significantly to the victim's sense of frustration at the
system's inability to respond appropriately.   The survey found that the State antistalking statutes
are having a positive impact on the number of cases reported to authorities.  However, victims
were divided on police response, with half of them expressing dissatisfaction with the way their
cases were handled by police.  Overall, a very small percentage of the stalking cases were
prosecuted, highlighting the critical need for criminal justice professionals to receive
comprehensive training to process and manage these cases to enhance victim safety and hold
offenders accountable.
                           CHAPTER 2
           FEDERAL AND STATE ANTISTALKING LEGISLATION
     In 1990, California became the first State to pass antistalking legislation.  Since then all
States and the District of Columbia have enacted laws making stalking a crime.  In 1996, a
Federal law was enacted to prohibit stalkers from traveling across a State line in pursuit of their
victims.  This legislation enabled Federal prosecution in instances where the interstate feature
of a stalking case created additional challenges to effective State investigation and prosecution of
such crimes.
     As mentioned previously, State antistalking statutes vary widely.  For instance, at least
four States and one Territory Alaska, Michigan, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Guam specifically
prohibit stalking through electronic means, such as e-mail.  Nine States Alaska, Connecticut,
Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Vermont permit enhanced
penalties in stalking cases involving victims who are minors.   As of March 1998, legislation to
enact new laws and strengthen existing ones addressing stalking of children is pending in 12
States.
     This chapter summarizes the cases prosecuted under the new Federal antistalking statute,
offers a comprehensive analysis of State antistalking laws, and concludes with a brief analysis of
the challenges mounted against some of these State statutes.  A complete list of State stalking
code citations and constitutional challenges to the statutes as of March 1998 can be found in
appendix A.
                Federal Antistalking Legislation
     The Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996 prohibits individuals
from traveling across a State line with the intent to injure or harass another person or placing
such person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury as a result of, or in the course of, such
travel.  Under this law, the Department of Justice has brought charges against nine stalkers as of
April 1998.  In all of these cases, the stalker was a male.  In eight of these cases, the victim was a
female.  Six of the nine cases involved intimates, former intimates or dating partners, and two
cases were related to the workplace.
     As of the end of April, four defendants had been sentenced under the Federal antistalking
statute and defendants in two other Federal antistalking cases were waiting to be sentenced.  In
one of the four cases in which sentences have been imposed, the defendant entered a guilty plea.
He was sentenced to six months in a community-based facility and a 3-year term of supervised
release.  In the second case, the stalker was convicted and received a sentence of 20 years.  In the
third case, the stalker was convicted on three counts--interstate violation of a protection order,
the interstate stalking statute, and the interstate domestic violence provision of VAWA.  He
received a sentence of 87 months.  In the fourth case, the defendant was found guilty on six
counts, including violation of the interstate stalking law.  He was sentenced to 120 months on the
stalking charge and 60 months for the remaining five charges.  In at least two of the cases, the
stalking occurred in a domestic violence context.
     The Department of Justice is committed to prosecuting cases involving interstate stalking
and plans to pursue these cases vigorously.  The Federal law fills an important gap in the legal
system's ability to respond effectively to stalking crimes.
        State-by-State Analysis of Antistalking Statutes
     The Federal law notwithstanding, stalking crimes are largely the responsibility of State
and local jurisdictions.  In the past decade, States have responded to this crime with a myriad of
statutory sanctions.  The following State-by-State analysis describes the extent to which stalking
and related laws have been enacted by the legislatures of the 50 States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.  When appropriate, the analysis contrasts the enactment of
stalking statutes with that of laws aimed at domestic violence, a common correlate of stalking
behavior.
Legal Context
     Before the enactment of stalking laws, police officers and prosecutors dealt with stalking
behavior using a variety of criminal law provisions.  These included harassment, (terroristic)
threats, criminal trespass, and specialized laws addressing telephone or letter harassment or
threats.  In a few States, civil law injunctions could also be used to keep stalkers at bay; and the
criminal contempt powers of the court were used to enforce these injunctions.
     In many jurisdictions, however, these laws failed to adequately address stalking behavior.
Civil injunctions were too difficult to obtain.  Criminal law penalties were often relatively light,
while more serious criminal laws required a high burden of proof as to intent.  Most important,
stalking behavior was not a high priority with police officers and prosecutors, who often lumped
stalking together with similarly unenforced  laws against domestic violence.
     Stalking laws changed this environment in two important ways.  First, the enactment of
such laws provided symbolic reinforcement of the seriousness with which legislators considered
stalking, effectively increasing its enforcement priority.  Second, these laws changed the
elements of crime that needed to be proven, adding in a reasonableness test in many States that
can be used to prove intent.
     Stalking laws do not necessarily replace the earlier harassment, terroristic threats, and
similar laws, however.  These older statutes still play an important role in enforcement of the
laws against stalking behavior.  Thus, a full understanding of stalking laws in the 50 States
requires inclusion of both stalking and these related statutes.  Stalking laws are often
supplemented by other laws that provide penalties for stalking-like behavior that lacks some
element of stalking.  This includes both harassing and threatening behavior.
Criminal Law Provisions for Stalking
     Exhibit 25 lists the types of laws found in each State by penalty and severity level.  In 32
States, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, a first conviction for stalking can be a felony.  However, in
16 of these States, felony penalties for stalking are restricted (denoted as [R] in exhibit 25) to
specific types of stalking, such as where there is bodily injury, weapon use/carrying, or where the
stalking constitutes a violation of a protective order.  In 22 of these 32 States (including the 16
States with restricted felony penalties), stalking may also be a misdemeanor, depending on the
specific behavior involved.  In the remaining 18 States that provide only misdemeanor penalties
for a first-offense stalking conviction, repeat stalking is a felony in all but 2.  In the District of
Columbia, a third stalking conviction calls for a maximum 3-year prison sentence.
Stalking of Minors
     Ten States mention stalking or harassing of a minor in their antistalking statutes;
however, only 9 of them provide for enhanced penalties against persons who stalk or harass
minors.  In five of these States, minors under the age of 16 are covered by the law, while in three
other States, coverage is extended to minors under the age of 18.  In the ninth State, only minors
under the age of 12 are covered by a law providing enhanced felony punishment for stalking (see
appendix B).  In California, harassing a minor because of the child's parents' employment is a
misdemeanor.  In Missouri, a special protection order for children is available that includes
protection from stalking by a present or former household member; violation of the order is a
Class A misdemeanor.
Related Criminal Laws
     Other criminal laws closely related to stalking include those that cover harassment and
intimidation.  A review of these laws for all 50 States is summarized in appendix C.  This review
indicates the following:
          Harassment laws have been adopted in 25 States and the territory of Guam.  In three of
     these States, harassment may be a felony.  In 3 other States, a second harassment offense
     may also be a felony.  In the remainder of the States, harassment is either a misdemeanor
     or a summary offense (one State).
          Threatening or intimidating behavior is a statutory crime in 35 States, the District of
     Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico.  In 17 of these States and Guam, threatening or
     intimidation may be a felony offense.  Two States call for enhanced penalties for repeat
     offenses.
          Laws specifically directed at telephone threats or harassment have been adopted in 43
     States, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.  Of these jurisdictions, only two States' laws
     provide felony sentences.  An additional six States make a repeat telephone threat or
     harassment offense a felony crime.
          Letter threats are the subject of 21 States' and the Virgin Islands' criminal laws.  Five of
     these States make letter threats a felony offense.  One State provides misdemeanor
     penalties for "written" forms of harassment.
          With respect to other stalking-related crimes, one State criminalized threats by facsimile.
     Three other States have made stalking by e-mail or fax elements of their definition of a
     stalking crime.  The territory of Guam forbids harassment by fax.
         Exhibit 25: State Stalking Laws by Crime Level Seriousness
State
Stalking Crime Level
         State
Stalking Crime Level
Alabama
B or C felony
     Montana
Misdemeanor; 2nd is
felony
Alaska
C felony (R) or
A misdemeanor
     Nebraska
Class 1 misdemeanor;
2nd is Class 4 felony
Arizona
Felony 4 or 5
     Nevada
B felony or
misdemeanor
Arkansas
B or C felony
     New
             Hampshire
A misdemeanor; 2nd is B
felony
California
Felony or misdemeanor;
2nd has 4 year maximum
     New Jersey
3rd (R) or 4th degree
crime
Colorado
Felony 6; 2nd is Class 5
felony
     New Mexico
Felony (R) or
misdemeanor
Connecticut
D felony (R) or
misdemeanor
     New York
B misdemeanor
Delaware
C or D felony (R) or F
felony
     North Carolina
Misdemeanor A1 or 2;
2nd is felony
District of Columbia
Misdemeanor; 3 years
for 3rd offense
     North Dakota
C felony (R) or
misdemeanor
Florida
Felony 3 or
misdemeanor 1
     Ohio
Misdemeanor 1; 2nd is
felony 5
Georgia
Felony (R) or
misdemeanor
     Oklahoma
Felony (R) or
misdemeanor
Hawaii
Misdemeanor; 2nd is C
felony
     Oregon
A misdemeanor; 2nd is C
felony
Idaho
Misdemeanor; 2nd is
felony
     Pennsylvania
Misdemeanor; 2nd is
felony
Illinois
Class 3 (R) or 4 felony
     Rhode Island
Misdemeanor; 2nd is
felony
Indiana
D felony (R) or A
misdemeanor
     South Carolina
Felony (R) or
misdemeanor
Iowa
D felony (R) or
aggravated
misdemeanor
     South Dakota
Misdemeanor; 2nd is
felony 5
Kansas
Class 9 (R) or 10 felony
     Tennessee
A misdemeanor; 2nd is C
felony (if same victim)
or E felony
Kentucky
D felony (R) or A
misdemeanor
     Texas
A misdemeanor; 2nd is
felony 3
Louisiana
Felony (R) or
misdemeanor
     Utah
Felony (R) or
misdemeanor
Maine
Class D crime; 3rd is
Class C crime (5-year
maximum)
     Vermont
Felony
Maryland
Misdemeanor (5-year
maximum)
     Virginia
Class 1 or 2
misdemeanor; 3rd is
felony 6
Massachusetts
Felony
     Washington
C felony (R) or gross
misdemeanor
Michigan
Felony or misdemeanor
     West Virginia
Misdemeanor; 3rd in 5
years is felony
Minnesota
Felony or gross
misdemeanor
     Wisconsin
Felony (R) or A
misdemeanor
Mississippi
Misdemeanor
     Wyoming
Felony (R) or
misdemeanor
Missouri
D felony or A
misdemeanor
     Guam
Felony 2 (R) or 3
     Virgin Islands
Felony
Source: Institute for Law and Justice, Alexandria, VA, March 1998.

Comparison of State Stalking Statutes to the NIJ Model Antistalking Law
     In 1993, NIJ sponsored a study conducted by the National Criminal Justice Association to
develop a Model Antistalking Code to assist States in developing felony-level antistalking laws.
The key crime elements of the NIJ-sponsored Model Code included:
          A course of conduct involving repeated physical proximity (following) or threatening
     behavior or both;
          The occurrence of incidents at least twice;
          Threatening behavior, including both explicit and implicit threats; and
          Conduct occurring against an individual or family members of the individual.
The criminal intent to commit stalking is measured by the Model Code by examining:
          Intent to engage in a course of conduct involving repeated following or threatening an
     individual;
          Knowledge that this behavior reasonably causes fear of bodily injury or death;
          Knowledge (or expectation) that the specific victim would have a reasonable fear of
     bodily injury or death;
          Actual fear of death or bodily injury experienced by a victim; and
          Fear of death or bodily injury felt by members of the victim's immediate family.
     The Model Code recommends that punishment for stalking crimes be set at the felony
level.  Other recommendations include:
                Expansion of the fear element to include fear of sexual assault; and
                Enactment of harassment/misdemeanor stalking or intimidation laws to deal with
        annoying behavior, including aggravated harassment for persistent behavior that does
        not rise to felony-level fear.
             A comparison of all State stalking laws to the Model Anti-Stalking Code provisions
        requires some translation to match the Code's specific use of language to the statutory language
        used in many States' codes.  The major differences between this review and a more formulaic
        review that allows for no deviation from the Code's language involve four points of departure:
        1.      Many States distinguish between stalking and aggravated stalking; the latter involves
        especially dangerous behavior, such as weapon possession or physical injury.  Many
        States that make this distinction limit felony penalties to aggravated stalking.  This
        review identifies States that provide felony penalties for stalking per se and those
        that reserve it for aggravated stalking.
        2.      The Model Code uses the phrase "purposefully engages in a course of conduct" to
        denote an intent to cause fear.  Many State laws, however, distinguish between the
        purposive act that constitutes stalking and the intent to instill fear itself.  This review
        separates these two concepts.
        3.      The Model Code includes "maintaining visual or physical proximity" as a critical
        element of stalking.  Many States, however, use the simpler term "following."
        Because so few States use the Model Code's broader language, the review does not
        distinguish between the two linguistic terms.
        4.      The Model Code language defining "course of conduct" was viewed as simply a
        guide because it, too, is rarely explicitly followed.  Instead, the review looks for
        substantial compliance with this language's intent (e.g., use of the phrase "pattern of
        behavior").
        With these changes, a review of State statutory agreement with the Model Code's
criminal law provisions shows that:
                Only 16 States, Guam, and the Virgin Islands make stalking a felony offense as
        recommended by the Model Code; an additional 16 States make only the most
        serious stalking incidents a felony.
                Forty-four States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands match the
        Code's use and definition of "course of conduct" involving physical proximity.
                Twenty-five States use the Code's definition of two or more incidents to specify how
        many incidents are required to demonstrate repeated behavior as part of a course of
        conduct; 24 States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands do not use this
        definition, although several of these States use the undefined term "repeated" in their
        laws.  One State defines repeated behavior as at least three acts.
                Only 12 States and the Virgin Islands explicitly define "threat" to include implied
        threats.
                Thirty-two States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands make
        intent to instill fear an element of the crime of stalking.  Of those that do not, 14
        States adopted the Code's requirement that the acts constituting stalking be done
        purposefully.  Only four States do not require some proof of intentional behavior as
        part of their stalking laws.
                Six States require using a "reasonable person" test to determine the reasonableness of
        any victim's fear resulting from the stalking behavior.
                Twenty-six States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands require
        fear of death or bodily injury, as recommended by the Model Code; five States use
        similar language to define fear, such as fear for one's physical safety; five other
        States add fear of sexual assault or battery, as recommended in the commentary to
        the Model Code; nine States protect against emotional distress and related responses,
        including feelings of annoyance or being threatened.  Only six States' statutes do not
        require that the stalking result in victim fear or some lesser response to the stalking.
                Twenty-six States and Guam extend the scope of fear to include the victim's family,
        as recommended by the Model Code.
     Exhibit 26 provides a State-by-State analysis of each of the key Model Anti-Stalking Code
provisions.  A checkmark in the statutory provision column indicates that the State's statute
generally meets the Model Code's recommended language.  The absence of a checkmark
signifies that either the statute makes no reference to the Model Code provision in question or the
language used is substantially different.

Exhibit 26:  State Stalking Laws' Agreement With Model Stalking Act
Stat
e
Stalking
Is
Felony
Crime
Stalking
Has
Special
Felony
Penalty
Stalking
Is
Misdem
eanor
Course
Conduct
/Pattern
Included
Two
Even
ts
Are
Requ
ired
Includes
"Follow
" Acts
Both
Actual
and
Implied
Threat
Purpose-
ful
Action
(e.g., to
follow)
Intend
ed or
Knew
of
Victim
Fear
Reason-
able
Victim
Fear
Actual
Fear of
Death
or
Injury
Family
of
Victim
Covere
d
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
  2
DE
DC
FL
GA
GU
HI
ID
IL
IN
  6
Exhibit 26 Continued
Stat
e
Stalkin
g Is
Felony
Crime
Stalking
Has
Special
Felony
Penalty
Stalking
Is
Misdem
eanor
Course
Conduct/
Pattern
Included
Two
Event
s Are
Requi
red
Includes
"Follow
" Acts
Both
Actual
and
Implied
Threat
Purpose-
ful
Action
(e.g., to
follow)
Intend
ed or
Knew
of
Victim
Fear
Reason-
able
Victim
Fear
Actual
Fear of
Death
or
Injury
Family
of
Victim
Covere
d
IA
KS
5
KY
  5
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
  2
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
Stat
e
Stalkin
g Is
Felony
Crime
Stalking
Has
Special
Felony
Penalty
Stalking
Is
Misdem
eanor
Course
Conduct/
Pattern
Included
Two
Event
s Are
Requi
red
Includes
"Follow
" Acts
Both
Actual
and
Implied
Threat
Purpose-
ful
Action
(e.g., to
follow)
Intend
ed or
Knew
of
Victim
Fear
Reason-
able
Victim
Fear
Actual
Fear of
Death
or
Injury
Family
of
Victim
Covere
d
ND
OH
7
OK
OR
  2
PA
RI
5
SC
  6
SD
5
TN
TX
UT
VT
  6
VA
  6
WA
WV
WI
WY
7
VI
Criminal Procedure Laws
     Criminal procedure laws regulate enforcement of criminal laws.  They range from
specifying how arrests are made to trial procedures to sentencing by the court.  Often changes in
criminal law require parallel changes in criminal procedure for the legislative intent to be fully
realized.  Stalking criminal law enactments are no exception.
Arrest Without Warrant
     Under common law, arrest without a warrant occurs in two situations.  First, officers may
arrest without a warrant, if they see a person committing a crime.  Second, police officers may
have probable cause to arrest if they believe that an individual committed a crime, but they did
not actually see the crime committed by the individual.  Different rules apply to warrantless
arrest authority where the latter authority is relied upon, depending on the nature of the offense.
     States with Felony Stalking Laws
     Police can arrest without a warrant any person who they have probable cause to believe
committed a felony.  In 24 States, stalking may be a felony offense.  In 11 of these States,
stalking of any sort is a felony, and police may arrest a stalker based on probable cause.  In the
other 13 States, stalking may be either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on a variety of
factors such as use of a weapon, injury, or prior convictions.  In these States, police may have to
first ascertain the seriousness of the stalking charge before they can arrest based on probable
cause.
     Special Misdemeanor Arrest Authority
     Police may arrest without a warrant a stalker charged with a misdemeanor offense on one
of two legal bases.  First, in 49 States, police may arrest without a warrant a person who they
have probable cause to believe committed misdemeanor domestic violence, including stalking.
Second, in 10 States where stalking may be a misdemeanor offense, police may arrest without a
warrant for misdemeanor stalking per se, that is, without any domestic violence involvement.
Other Criminal Procedure Provisions
     Other criminal procedure provisions include those relating to pretrial release of persons
charged with stalking offenses, State registry of stalking protective orders, and training of police
in investigating stalking complaints.
     Pretrial Release
     In 14 States, special pretrial release provisions are set for persons charged with stalking.
These include nine States (Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Ohio, Texas,
Washington, and West Virginia) that authorize or require issuance of an antistalking protection
order as part of any pretrial release order following arrest for stalking.  In Illinois, bail may be
denied if the stalker is found to be a serious threat to the safety of another person. Bail may also
be denied in Georgia on the basis of prior violation of a pretrial release order or of
parole/probation conditions.  In two States (Montana and Oklahoma), police are not authorized to
issue citations or bail release before judicial arraignment.  Three States (California, Ohio, and
Vermont) require courts to treat stalking as a serious crime in setting a bail level.  In other States,
the court's authority to issue a no-contact order is inherent in its discretionary authority to
impose release conditions.
     North Carolina has a unique provision aimed at protecting minors.  There, State law
provides for issuance of a no-stalking order as part of pretrial release for any person charged with
a violent offense against a minor.
     State Registries of Orders
     In six States, a special registry for stalking orders is established by statute to facilitate
police confirmation of the validity of any stalking order.  In addition to the stalking order
registries, legislation in 33 States (including 5 of the 6 with stalking registries) requires the
establishment of a special registry for domestic violence protection orders; these orders may, of
course, include antistalking provisions.
     Training
     Police training about stalking is required in Minnesota.  In 30 States, the District of
Columbia, and the Virgin Islands, police training on domestic violence is required; this training
is often administratively required to include stalking in the context of domestic violence.
Civil Law Injunctions and Penalties
     In many States, criminal law penalties for stalking are complemented by civil law
remedies for victims of stalking.  Thus, injunctions against stalking behavior are available in 23
States.  In the other 27 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands,
stalking may be enjoined as an element of a protection order issued against domestic violence or
abuse (see exhibit 27).
     In the 23 States with stalking injunction laws, criminal penalties are provided for
violating the court order in all but 2 of these States.  In the two States without specific criminal
penalties for violating an antistalking court order, violations of the order may be punished under
the criminal contempt authority of the court to punish violations of any court order (see exhibit
27).
     In the remaining State, stalking violations of the court order are punished under the
courts' general powers of  criminal contempt (see appendix B).  One unique provision is found in
North Dakota, where State law requires that the stalking law provisions be attached to all
domestic violence protection orders.
Tort Damages
     At least four States now specifically provide for a tort action based on stalking behavior.
These States are California, Oregon, Texas, and Wyoming. In the remaining States, such
actions might be brought either as civil actions for assault or under the courts' inherent power to
provide tort remedies for commission of a crime. The key element of a civil assault action is
being unreasonably placed in fear of injury.
     Among the 27 States with no separate stalking protection order provisions, 3 States
specifically provide criminal penalties for stalking violations of a domestic violence protection
order.  In 23 of the remaining 24 States with only domestic violence orders available, criminal
penalties for violating a domestic violence protection order are applicable to stalking violations.
In the remaining State, stalking violations of the court order are punished under the courts'
general powers of  criminal contempt (see appendix B).
         Exhibit 27: Stalking Protection Orders
State
Civil Injunction
Available/Penalty
State
Civil Injunction
Available/Penalty
Arizona
Criminal contempt
New Hampshire
Misdemeanor; 2nd is
felony
California
4-year maximum
North Dakota
Felony
Colorado
Class 6 felony
Oklahoma
Misdemeanor
Florida
Misdemeanor
Oregon
Class C felony or
Class A misdemeanor
Idaho
Misdemeanor; 2nd
is felony
Rhode Island
Felony
Maine
Class D crime
South Carolina
Misdemeanor
Michigan
No penalty
South Dakota
Felony 6 or
misdemeanor
Minnesota
Misdemeanor
Virginia
Misdemeanor 1
Missouri
Misdemeanor; 2nd
in 5 years is Class D
felony
Washington
Class C felony
Montana
Misdemeanor
Wisconsin
Misdemeanor
Nebraska
Misdemeanor
Wyoming
Misdemeanor
Nevada
Class C felony
                                           New Challenges to State Antistalking Laws
     All the State antistalking laws withstood legal challenges this past year (see appendix A).
In April 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions to hear challenges to antistalking laws in
the District of Columbia and Virginia.  The Court declined to review the two challenges to the
State antistalking laws.  The challenges were made on the grounds that these laws were
constitutionally vague and overbroad.
     In the District of Columbia case, Roy L. Jett was convicted of stalking for sending
sexually explicit, threatening letters to a woman with whom he had previously been acquainted
and also for sending threatening letters to the woman's mother.  Jett appealed his conviction of
stalking, challenging the statute on a constitutional basis.  The D.C. Court of Appeals decided
that Jett's rights were not violated because his letters, which might otherwise be protected speech
under the First Amendment, were part of a course of conduct constituting the criminal offense of
stalking (Roy L. Jett v. United States, No. 95-CF-1529 {D.C. April 15, 1997}).
     In the Virginia case, Michael Parker, who was serving a prison sentence for stalking his
former intimate, was convicted of first-offense stalking for repeatedly telephoning her while he
was incarcerated.  Parker rarely chose to speak during these calls, although he did tell the victim
that he "would be out" of jail and that she should "not be afraid."  Parker challenged the
constitutionality of Virginia's stalking statute on the grounds of vagueness and overbreadth.  The
court decided that these calls were multiple instances of conduct directed at the victim; they
caused a reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury; and Parker intended
to cause fear or knew that fear would result from his conduct.  The court dismissed Parker's
vagueness challenge to the definition of the reasonable fear statutory element on the grounds that
the reasonable fear standard was objective and limited in scope.  The court found no merit in
Parker's overbreadth challenge, stating that the purpose of the statute is clear, and the statute is
tailored so that it does not substantially infringe upon speech protected by the First Amendment.
(Parker v. Commonwealth, 485 S.E.2d 150 {Va. Ct. App. 1997})
Conclusion
     Every State and the Federal government now have enacted laws prohibiting stalking.
While all State antistalking laws withstood legal challenges this past year, these laws remain
incomplete.  In several States, defects in the language of the stalking laws leave them vulnerable
to constitutional challenge where courts are unable to provide ameliorating interpretations such
as imputing the need for intent or mens re where none exists in the statute as enacted.  The Model
Anti-Stalking Code has not been widely followed.  It is unclear how these defects are handled in
practice by recourse to alternative criminal law approaches such as use of harassment or
threatening behavior laws.  NIJ is sponsoring ongoing research to help answer this question.
Results of this research will be included in future reports.
     Other problems include the unavailability of stalking protection orders in most States
except in the context of domestic violence.  Of course, the courts may have issued such
injunctions without explicit statutory authority, combining the court's common law ability to
fashion remedies and the criminal law stalking provisions; there is no information currently
available on this point.  Nor do we know much about the significance of the absence of explicit
authority to arrest without a warrant in states where stalking is a misdemeanor offense.  Again,
ongoing research may provide answers to both these questions.

                           CHAPTER 3
             SENTENCING AND SUPERVISION OF STALKERS
     The management of cases involving stalking behavior in this country has been influenced
profoundly by criminal justice officials' recognition of the persistence and potential lethality of
stalking behavior. These characteristics of stalking behavior have become primary considerations
in shaping strategies and protocols for investigating and prosecuting cases involving stalking
behavior.  They have been equally significant factors in influencing sentencing decisions in
stalking cases.
     Because of the potentially deadly nature of stalking behavior, protection of the victim is
an overarching consideration at all stages of cases involving stalking.  Moreover, this focus on
victim protection does not diminish with the imposition of a sentence in stalking cases.  Criminal
justice officials are looking to the sentencing phase of these types of cases as the point at which
they can place enforceable constraints on the behavior of the stalker. These officials assert that
prevention is a primary goal in sentencing offenders convicted in cases involving stalking and
that sentencing and supervision therefore are inextricably linked in these cases.  Increasingly,
criminal justice officials are seeking sanctions that will stop the stalking behavior for the
foreseeable future and hold the offender accountable if he ever engages in such activity again.
Scope of the Chapter
     The second annual report to Congress on stalking and domestic violence included a
section focusing on strategies for investigating and prosecuting stalking cases.  Moving along the
criminal justice continuum, this chapter focuses on sentencing and supervision of stalkers.  It
presents a snapshot of existing strategies and protocols for imposing sanctions in cases involving
stalking and explores some of the myriad of legal, policy, and practical considerations that have
helped shape these strategies and protocols.  It also examines perceived limitations and
deficiencies in current stalking-related sentencing and supervision strategies and protocols, and
describes some approaches that criminal justice officials interviewed for this report suggested
could be pursued to overcome these limitations and deficiencies.
     Information presented in this chapter was gathered through telephone interviews with
numerous criminal justice officials across the country and from reports and other materials
provided by these individuals.  The chapter reflects the experiences, observations, and opinions
of officials who have been in the forefront of efforts to develop stalking-related sentencing and
supervision strategies and protocols.  Admittedly, these officials by no means comprise the
universe of dedicated criminal justice professionals and social service providers who currently
are involved with initiatives aimed at improving the criminal justice system's management of
stalking cases and stalkers themselves.  (A list of those interviewed for this report appears in
appendix F.)  Many of the efforts mentioned in this chapter are being pursued by criminal justice
practitioners at other agencies as well.  These other practitioners are making equally significant
contributions to addressing stalking.
Uses and Limitations
     This chapter provides some insights, but it does not answer questions such as how many
cases involving stalking behavior are being prosecuted in this country; how many of these cases
have resulted in convictions; and what sanctions have been imposed in these cases.  Efforts to
examine sentencing in stalking cases are particularly difficult because these cases often are not
charged under stalking statutes.  In fact, criminal justice officials interviewed for this report
noted that the majority of offenders who have been convicted for offenses involving stalking in
their respective jurisdictions were prosecuted and sentenced under statutes covering other
criminal acts such as assault, harassment, or terroristic threats, or for violating the terms and
conditions of a protection order.
     In addition, stalking in most jurisdictions is being addressed as an integral component of
an overall strategy to handle domestic violence cases.  Therefore, most criminal justice officials
interviewed could describe how stalking behavior might affect sentencing or supervision
strategies if that behavior were an element of a domestic violence case.  These strategies include
closer supervision of the offender or an expedited response to violations of protection orders.
They were unable to extract data and other information concerning specific stalking incidents
from the broader body of information about domestic violence.
     Many of these criminal justice practitioners said that they have implemented or plan to
implement initiatives to improve the collection and analysis of data on cases involving stalking.
However, these officials point to significant resource limitations and difficulties in developing
and implementing appropriate data collection protocols as major obstacles that must be overcome
to enhance the availability and accessibility of data on cases involving stalking. For example,
unless criminal justice officials have put in place special protocols for flagging and tracking
cases involving stalking as they are accepted for prosecution, the retroactive identification of
these cases would be a difficult, costly, and time-consuming task in most jurisdictions.  One
criminal justice official observed that in her jurisdiction, cases are recorded as felonies or
misdemeanors, not by the charges brought in the cases.  Consequently, she would have to review
every case file to isolate information concerning the prosecution and disposition of cases
involving stalking.
Sentencing Goals in Stalking Cases
     The NIJ-sponsored  Model Anti-Stalking Code for States, produced in collaboration with
an advisory panel composed of public and private interest group representatives, urged States to
make stalking a felony.  Alternatively, the report advised, if a State declines to make stalking a
felony, it "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 those aggravating factors are present."
     The report's authors also urged States to consider adopting stalking sentencing policies
that "seek to achieve an effective balance between punishment and public safety objectives."
According to the report:
          These policies should seek to protect the stalking victim; allow law enforcement officials
     to intervene when appropriate; provide appropriate sanctions for the convicted stalker;
     and ensure treatment services for a stalker who can be helped by medical and psychiatric
     intervention.
     The report continued that "[s]talkers have unique characteristics that must be taken into
account by criminal justice officials in making sentencing decisions."  The report's authors
noted that:
          Stalkers may be obsessive, unpredictable, and potentially violent.  They often commit a
     series of increasingly serious acts, which may become suddenly violent, and result in the
     victim's injury or death.
     Therefore, the report concluded, "[s]tates should consider establishing a continuum of
charges that could be used by law enforcement officials to intervene at various stages."
Moreover, the report continued, "appropriate and reasonable mechanisms for managing the
stalker should be incorporated into states' sentencing schemes to reduce the potential threat to the
victim."
     The linking of sentencing and the management, or "supervision," of stalkers arguably
adds a new dimension to generally accepted goals of sentencing policy and one with which
criminal justice officials interviewed for this report appear to be in agreement.  Traditionally,
sentencing is the reactive phase of a criminal proceeding.  The sanction imposed during the
sentencing phase is intended to punish the offender for the crime for which he was convicted and,
in general terms, to protect the public from any further harm at the hands of the offender.
     However, Steven R. Siegel, director of program development for the Denver (Colorado)
District Attorney's Office, observed that stalking behavior exhibits a characteristic that is "unlike
any other subtlety that we deal with in any other criminal activity."  Stalking "is very much
defined by the psychological interplay that goes on [between the victim and the stalker]," Siegel
said.  With an arrest in a stalking case, he continued, "we light a fuse.  Every stage [of a stalking
case] is a dangerous time."  Sentencing of stalkers therefore must center around victim safety and
offender accountability, he added.
     Pamela A. Paziotopolous, supervisor of the Targeted Abuser Call (TAC) team in the
Cook County (Illinois) State's Attorney's Office, agreed.  Stalking, she asserted, is a
"preventable crime."  The objective of the court in imposing a sentence in a stalking case should
be to impose proactive conditions and constraints on the behavior of the offender that allow
criminal justice officials to intervene immediately if the offender persists in his pursuit of his
victim.
     Detective Howard  E. Black of the Colorado Springs (Colorado) Police Department's
Domestic Violence Unit believes that sentencing in cases involving stalking behavior has both
reactive and proactive elements: On the reactive side, the offender is being sanctioned for the
crime that he was convicted of committing; on the proactive side, the offender is being told by
the court, "If you engage in inappropriate behavior [again], we will intervene; there are going to
be consequences."
State Stalking Codes and Sentencing
     As noted earlier in the report, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin
Islands have enacted statutes that proscribe and provide sanctions for stalking behavior.
However, criminal justice officials interviewed for this report indicated that, in their collective
experience, most persons convicted in cases involving stalking behavior are sentenced under
statutes other than stalking laws, even when stalking was among the original charges brought in
the case. Andrew R. Klein, former chief probation officer for the Quincy (Massachusetts) District
Court, said that between 1995 and 1996, only 5 of 400 cases involving stalking behavior that
came before the Quincy District Court were prosecuted under the State's stalking statute.
     Judge John Rowley of the Ithaca (New York) City Court said that none of the cases
involving stalking that have come before his court have been charged under the State's stalking
statute.  The cases involving stalking that he sees "usually are connected" to domestic violence
and therefore "always [are handled] in the domestic violence arena," Rowley said.  Most cases
involving stalking that Rowley hears occur in the context of estranged relationships and involve
such behavior as following, calling, and leaving notes.  In one case, Rowley said, an offender
who had a relationship with a woman was leaving compromising photographs of her on the
windshield of her car and threatening to show the photographs to her grandmother.  In such a
case, stalking would be charged under the State's aggravated harassment statute, Rowley
explained.
     Gwen P. Wilkinson, Tompkins County (New York) domestic violence prevention
coordinator and a former Tompkins County assistant district attorney, said that in her 5 years
with the District Attorney's Office, no cases were prosecuted under the State's stalking statute.
Most allegations of stalking behavior that she encountered during her tenure in the District
Attorney's Office occurred in the broader context of a domestic violence incident:  "We didn't
have very many straight stalking cases" in that substantially rural county of 102,000 residents,
she explained.  Most stalking offenders were sentenced for violations of protection orders that
had been issued by the court in domestic violence cases, she added.
Issues Affecting Sentencing and Supervision of Stalkers
     Criminal justice officials confront numerous issues in imposing sentences in stalking
cases and formulating appropriate supervision strategies to intervene in stalking behavior.  These
issues arise from legal, policy, and practical considerations.
The Law
     Several of the criminal justice officials interviewed believe that serious deficiencies exist
in antistalking and related laws that tend to undermine the prosecution and disposition of cases
involving this behavior.  Judge Rowley of the Ithaca City Court observed that, in New York,
there is a "bad situation" with respect to the law covering domestic violence and, in that context,
stalking.  He said that domestic violence incidents "routinely are charged low."  In addition, he
said, New York provides "inadequate penalties for assaultive behavior."  There is "an
unbelievable level of violence that doesn't count" as domestic violence, he said; " Stealing a pack
of cigarettes may result in a stiffer penalty than some kinds of domestic violence."
     Moreover, the State's bail statute does not permit judges to consider the safety of the
victim and the community in determining whether and with what conditions bail will be granted,
Rowley said.  This, he believes, is a serious deficiency that undermines the court's efforts to
provide for the safety of domestic violence and stalking victims.
     Rowley is undecided about the overall necessity and usefulness of stalking statutes, but
believes that New York somehow must strengthen the body of laws that can be applied in
domestic violence and stalking cases.  If this is done, Rowley believes that these crimes  "would
be taken more seriously" by judges and prosecutors.
     According to Rowley, efforts already are underway to make some of the changes in the
law that he believes are necessary.  The order of protection has been strengthened in New York
to make it more easily obtainable by victims; on the downside, he added, a lot of new paperwork
is required under the new protection order provisions.
Proving the Stalking Case
     George E. Wattendorf, city prosecutor with the Dover (New Hampshire) Police
Department's Prosecution unit, also believes that existing laws should be reexamined for their
sufficiency with respect to stalking cases.  Wattendorf said that New Hampshire currently is
examining its stalking law to consider changes that would allow "indirect contact" between the
offender and the victim and prior acts to be admitted as evidence in support of a charge of
stalking.  Wattendorf said that it is "difficult under the current law to show that the victim is in
fear."
     Paziotopolous of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office said that her division
prosecutes numerous stalking cases under Illinois' antistalking code. While certainly
underscoring the seriousness of the crime, the felony status of a stalking offense creates a number
of evidentiary problems that complicate the development and prosecution of stalking cases,
Paziotopolous noted.  She added that often it is difficult to convince a judge or a jury of the
potential dangerousness of the stalking behavior. "We are not able to get prior acts admitted," she
said, and therefore are unable to meet the burden of proving "a course of conduct" that is required
under the State's stalking statute.  And "we don't have pictures or witness corroboration" as
generally is available in most criminal cases, she added.
     Judge Rowley of the Ithaca City Court agreed that evidentiary issues make stalking a very
difficult area for judges;  for example, he explained, there are so many casual, inadvertent ways
in which victims of stalking unintentionally may come in contact with their pursuers that,
without adequate physical or corroborating evidence, a judge may find it difficult to determine
whether the contact was an act of stalking or an unintentional encounter between the alleged
stalker and the complainant.  Moreover, Rowley added, there still is a problem with recognizing
the dangerousness of domestic violence and stalking incidents.  The  "casual" attitude toward
these crimes, Rowley says, "goes back to men's devaluing of women."
     Roxann Ryan of the Iowa Attorney General's Office said that judges' attitudes toward
stalking vary widely across the State, but she agreed with Rowley and Paziotopolous that many
judges do not appreciate the dangerousness of stalking behavior.  Ryan said many judges see
stalking as a "trendy crime" instead of a real crime.  They don't understand the terror that the
victim feels, Ryan said.  "They think, 'this is harassment, a civil case; the victim is
overreacting.'"
     Many criminal justice officials simply do not appreciate the impact of stalking behavior
on the victim, said Robert C. Gallup, executive director of AMEND, a nonprofit program for
domestic violence offenders in Denver.  "Everyone minimizes [the fact] that this kind of
behavior freaks people out," Gallup observed of criminal justice officials' reactions to stalking.
     Because of evidentiary issues involved in proving stalking under existing law,
Wattendorf of the Dover Police Department said criminal justice officials in New Hampshire,
where stalking is considered a misdemeanor offense, often opt to prosecute cases involving
stalking behavior under the State's protection order statute.  Wattendorf explained that although a
violation of a protection order stays a misdemeanor under New Hampshire law, a lesser standard
of proof applies under the State's protection order statute. A violation of a protection order is an
act of contempt against the court, he said.  "The court is almost the victim in a protection order
violation."
     Gallup, of Denver's AMEND program agreed, that deficiencies in State stalking laws
impede the prosecution of these cases.  He added that stalkers are being convicted under the
State's stalking law, but "rarely." He said that Colorado's stalking law is only 4 or 5 years old and
generally is not applied very often by police and prosecutors.   Gallup said that the State
sometimes is successful in prosecuting stalking cases involving a victim and a perpetrator who
are boyfriend and girlfriend under Colorado's domestic violence statute even though that law
generally does not cover individuals involved in such relationships.   According to Gallup,
Colorado's domestic violence statute applies only to spouses, former spouses, unmarried persons
who currently cohabit or formerly lived together, or individuals who have a child in common.   If
the offender has a good lawyer, he could argue that the case is not domestic violence  because the
relationship under the law is not there, Gallup said; however, most offenders do not have lawyers
representing them, he added.
     Gallup said that AMEND successfully lobbied in the 1997 session of the State legislature
to have threatening physical acts included in the State's stalking statute as a basis for proving
credible threat; before securing that amendment, credible threat could be proved only where there
was a verbal threat against the victim, he explained.  "In one case, we had to put six
misdemeanors together, because we did not have a credible threat" to the victim as is required
under the Colorado stalking statute, Gallup said.
Stranger Stalking
     Roxann M. Ryan of  the Iowa Attorney General's Office believes that existing laws and
intervention strategies do not make adequate provisions for cases involving stranger stalking.
Ryan said that Iowa law does provide for obtaining a restraining order in stranger stalking cases,
but she added that these orders are "more difficult to get if it is not a domestic violence case."
Moreover, restraining orders can only be entered into the State's protection order registry if they
are issued in a domestic violence case.
     In addition, Ryan said, State "law allows protection orders to be renewed even after the
offender is released from court supervision in domestic violence cases, but we can't do this when
the case is not domestic-violence-related" until the behavior is more serious and has risen to the
level of a felony.  Moreover, Iowa's law allows domestic violence victims to represent
themselves in their cases, Ryan said.  By contrast, in a stranger stalking case, the victim must
hire an attorney to represent her.
     According to Pamela A. Paziotopolous of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office,
stranger stalking victims are a largely "neglected group" in Illinois.  There are "not a lot of
avenues for people who are victims of stranger stalking," she said.  The "biggest thing" in a case
involving stranger stalking is that "victims are not receiving long-term protection."  There is "not
a lot we can do to protect [victims of stranger stalking].  The court can issue a 4-year protection
order on a conviction for domestic violence," Paziotopolous said, but this option is not available
in cases involving stranger stalking.  Under Illinois law, protection orders can be issued only if
the alleged offender and the victim are related or have been involved in a relationship.  If there is
no relationship between the principals, such as in the case of stranger stalking, no protection
order can be issued.
     Wattendorf of the Dover Police Department observed that "stalking is undercharged by
police" in stranger stalking cases.  Victims in cases involving stalking behavior need quick and
easy access to protection orders, which is not characteristic of the process for getting an order in
stranger stalking cases in New Hampshire, he said.  In addition, Wattendorf continued, the
federal restrictions on the ownership of handguns by offenders convicted of domestic violence do
not apply in stalking cases.  Moreover, Wattendorf said, notice of the issuance of a protective
order in a stranger stalking case may not be entered into the State's automated protection order
registry.
Domestic Violence and Stalking
     The relationship between domestic violence and stalking raises the issue of whether the
imposition of charges in and the prosecution of a case involving stalking should be driven by the
offender's behavior or the underlying motive for that behavior.  The public and private interest
group representatives who were part of the project resource group for NIJ's Model Antistalking
Code for States responded to that issue by asserting that "the alleged stalker's behavior, not
motives, should be the most significant factor in determining" the charge in the case.
     Although motives are relevant to the ultimate management and disposition of a case, the
resource group agreed that neither the stalker's motive nor the context in which the stalking
occurred should be considered when the crime is charged.  If the conduct in which the person
engages is seriously threatening, it should be charged as stalking, regardless of the defendant's
motivations or relationship to the victim.
     However,  criminal justice officials indicate that the question of the relationship of
domestic violence and stalking and the effects of this relationship on the charging and
prosecution of stalking cases remains open.  Steven R. Siegel of the Denver District Attorney's
Office drew a parallel between criminal justice officials' initial handling of domestic violence
and "how we currently are treating the crime of stalking.  In the early days, we really thought it
would be great to have a crime of domestic violence.  Then we realized that was shortsighted."
He continued, "Criminal justice officials recognized that domestic violence include a number of
elements and that we needed to have a strategy to accommodate that characteristic of domestic
violence."
     Siegel added, "I think we are going through a similar situation now with stalking.  We are
starting to realize that stalking includes a range of behaviors that extend from less serious to
more serious.  We renamed domestic violence as an underlying element of any crime; if we could
show that the underlying cause [of the criminal activity] was domestic violence, then all of those
[criminal acts] pin you as a domestic violence offender.  We need to go there also with stalking.
We are not taking into account...[the] full continuum of stalking behavior."
     Maryellen Martirano, second deputy district attorney with the Westchester County (New
York) District Attorney's Office, believes that stalking should be separated from domestic
violence entirely. Martirano said that she does not agree with the practice of "lumping the
repeated course of conduct that occurs in almost every domestic violence case with stalking."
Instead, she suggested that the stalking behavior be treated as an element of the course of conduct
underlying the domestic violence case.  "The reality is that we have always charted course of
conduct in domestic violence because it applies," she said, but "we don't classify [that course of
conduct] as stalking."  Moreover, she added, a course of conduct involving stalking in the
context of domestic violence "doesn't produce different conditions for supervision" than
otherwise might be imposed in a domestic violence case.
     Martirano said that in domestic violence cases prosecuted by her office, stalking "usually
is not the most serious charge presented; [it is] just an extra charge."  If the offender were
convicted of the stalking charge brought in a domestic violence case, he might receive a lesser
penalty than he would if he had been convicted of one of the other charges brought in the case.
Furthermore, she added, domestic violence cases "don't slip through the cracks; stalking cases
slip through the cracks."
     Martirano said that in her opinion, "real stalking" involves offenders and victims who are
strangers to one another; in other words, individuals who are not related or who are not in an
estranged relationship.  She said that her office does not see very much stranger stalking.  She
said that the "most serious" stalking cases that her office sees are cases that involve "obsessional"
behavior: A couple has one date; the man wants to pursue a relationship with the woman and
starts following her around.  No special provisions have been made for handling such cases in the
Westchester County District Attorney's Office, she added.  Her office is "handling them by
default."
     By contrast, in Colorado Springs, bringing stalking charges appears to be an integral
component of handling domestic violence cases involving stalking behavior.  Black, of the
Colorado Springs Police Department, said that the State's stalking statute can be "a wonderful
tool" in responding to stalking behavior in domestic violence cases.
      Under Colorado's stalking statute, stalking is "relatively easy to pull into a domestic
violence case if the behavior is an element of the crime," Black said. "We just have to have a
credible threat," and if that credible threat is present, "we can start to develop a stalking case."
     Other criminal justice officials observed that stalking occurs so often in connection with
domestic violence that the two crimes almost are inseparable.  Robert C. Gallup of Denver's
AMEND program said that a substantial number of offenders charged with domestic violence in
Colorado also stalk; but he added that "a very small number of cases are charged under [the
state's] stalking statute." He said, "The problem is that so many domestic violence perpetrators
are stalkers.  It happens much more frequently than anyone would think."  The presence of
stalking in a case is an indicator of a problem that does not get enough attention from criminal
justice officials, Gallup added.  Many times AMEND counselors discover during intake that
offenders whose cases did not involve charges of stalking actually were in fact stalking their
victims. Gallup said he believes that  in Colorado, only the district attorneys in the Denver
metropolitan and Boulder areas are equipped to put together stalking cases. Rural areas of
Colorado, he observed, do not have the training or resources needed to follow through in stalking
cases.
     He said that difficulties in developing stalking cases are compounded by the tendency of
the officials to "minimize in reporting what happened" in the incident or "they go to the other
extreme" and report a number of unrelated, noncriminal acts and do not establish the relationship
between or underlying threatening characteristic of these acts that is necessary to prove that
stalking has occurred.
Training
     Steven R. Siegel of the Denver District Attorney's Office acknowledged, "We need to do
a better job about training in [handling] stalking cases."  Criminal justice officials are "getting on
the bandwagon," Siegel said, and beginning to develop protocols for handling stalking cases.
However, he added that progress in this arena is slow in coming.
     For police and prosecutors, handling stalking cases may require departures from
traditional ways of carrying out their respective responsibilities.  "Cops are afraid that they will
have to put 24-hour guards on stalkers," Siegel said.  Prosecutors may see stalking cases as
unwinnable, he observed.  "Prosecutors generally get trained in how to win a case. When a case
doesn't look winnable in the traditional sense, when essential elements of the case are missing,
they say 'let's not try the case.'"   Because of this, Siegel especially emphasized the need for
training prosecutors.  "Prosecutors really understand an aggravated robbery," Siegel observed.
"They need to develop that [same] understanding of stalking."  Prosecutors need training about
the specific dynamics of stalking and on protocols for handling stalking cases that are based on
interdisciplinary cross-training, Siegel said.
     Paziotopolous of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office underscored the need for
training judges on stalking to help them understand the complexities and potential dangerousness
of cases involving stalking behavior.  "We need to make sure that training for judges includes a
separate section on stalking," Paziotopolous said.  "Stalking  needs to be explored separately
[from domestic violence]."
     Black of the Colorado Springs Police Department also believes that police, prosecutors,
and judges need training in handling stalking cases.  "We're just not doing a good job in this
country in investigating and prosecuting stalking cases," Black said.  He added, "We don't
understand stalking" or appreciate that handling stalking cases can be expensive and time-
consuming.  Stalking cases "can be easy to prosecute if we do a better job on their investigation,"
Black said.
     Gallup of Denver's AMEND program also believes that criminal justice officials need
additional training in strategies for building stalking cases.  He said that he believes that criminal
justice officials "are just beginning to understand how to put all the pieces together in a whole
context" to build a stalking case.  Social service providers also need to understand the potential
dangerousness of stalking behavior, Gallup observed.
Sentencing in Cases Involving Stalking
     In the Ithaca City Court, Judge Rowley said, probation is the most likely sentence in
domestic violence cases and therefore in any cases involving stalking that result in convictions in
his court.  According to Rowley, the maximum sentence in a domestic violence case generally is
a year, or eight months if the offender receives credit for good behavior while on probation.  In a
recent case that involved stalking, Rowley imposed a sentence of two months in jail and three
years on probation.
     Rowley reported that he also would condition probation in cases involving stalking
behavior:  For example, an offender who has physically abused his victim would be required to
participate in a program for batterers; an offender who had engaged in some inappropriate sexual
behavior might be referred to the mental health clinic for counseling.
     Rowley indicated that the safety of the victim is a primary consideration in imposing
sentences in domestic violence cases.  He said that a final order of protection is issued at
sentencing in domestic violence cases.  But Rowley worried about the safety of victims during
the time between conviction and sentencing. He asserted that in cases involving stalking, a
protection order should be in place from arrest through sentencing and even after the offender has
served his sentence.
     In Colorado Springs, a multidisciplinary response team has been put into place to
enhance that community's response to domestic violence, including cases involving stalking.
Black of the Colorado Springs Police Department said that the Domestic Violence Enhanced
Response Team, or DVERT program, which is funded through the Department of Justice's
Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies, has not been in operation long enough to have had much
experience with sentencing in stalking cases.  Black said that the first stalking case prosecuted
under the DVERT program "involved an offender who had been arrested 24 times for domestic
violence; he received [a sentence of] 18 months."  A second offender received a sentence of 2.5
years; a third case that is likely to be settled under a negotiated plea agreement is likely to result
in a 2-year sentence for the offender.
     Black said that in his experience, "Defense attorneys want to get pleas in stalking cases.
But police and prosecutors won't always capitulate." He said that in one stalking case, the
prosecutor and the defense counsel are involved in plea negotiations over a 10-year sentence.
     According to Nancy M. Lick of the Westchester County (New York) Probation
Department, offenders who violate protection orders are "getting jail time" for violations in that
county.  "Judges have been putting more teeth in their orders," Lick added.
     Roxann M. Ryan, assistant attorney general in the Iowa Attorney General's Office, said
that under existing data collection protocols, Iowa cannot track dispositions in stalking cases.
However, she said, although no formal data collection effort is in place, available data indicate
that "we're getting pleas in 95 percent of the cases" involving stalking.
     She added that some offenders convicted in cases involving stalking will receive a little
jail time or be placed in a halfway house.  But most offenders in these cases, she said, are
sentenced to supervised release.  "The feeling is we can keep [the stalker] under court
supervision longer if he is placed on probation."
     However, Ryan said, there are mixed reviews on probation officials' follow-up on
offenders convicted of stalking.  This, she said, in part is because "we haven't done anything to
educate" state corrections officials about managing cases involving stalking.  Many of these
officials view cases involving stalking as "whining victim" cases, she said.
Supervision in Stalking Cases
     Siegel of the Denver District Attorney's Office doesn't think traditional supervision
strategies work with stalkers [because of the persistence of stalkers and the need to protect the
victim].  Siegel believes that what is needed is a "containment protocol," an approach that is
predicated on containing the behavior of the stalker and holding him accountable.
     "We [currently] don't have long enough sanctions, and probably never will, to control the
stalker in a way that is longer-term effective.  We can't give a stalker [a sentence of] 50 years,"
Siegel said. And protective orders do not provide adequate protection for the victim when the
offender is returned to the community.  According to Siegel, what is needed  is "a continuum of
containment" that provides long-term protection for the victim. "We need progressive sentencing
[for stalkers]; sentences for second and subsequent offenses need to be profound and
progressive," he recommended.
     The Denver District Attorney's Office is the "home of protocol," Siegel said.  "We have
developed protocols to deal with child abuse and domestic violence, for example.  We need that
kind of protocol for stalking.  That means cooperative agreements with police, victim advocates,
prosecutors. If we don't have that [interagency cooperative agreement], we might as well say
there is a license to stalk," Siegel said.
     Nancy Lick and Robert Chace of the Westchester County Probation Department agree
that supervision of offenders is critical at all stages in the processing of a domestic violence case,
especially in cases involving stalking.  However, in Westchester County, the Probation
Department is not permitted to supervise offenders in criminal court between conviction and
sentencing.  Unless supervision of the offender is ordered as a presentence condition, the
Probation Department can not intervene. Currently, the department has to hope that if a violation
of a protection order occurs between trial and sentencing, the victim will report a protection order
violation, because the department cannot do anything between adjudication and sentencing.
     Lick said that the department is just "beginning to get a sense of the amount of
harassment going on between adjudication of guilt and the sentencing hearing."  Probation
officers are finding that when violence does occur between the trial and sentencing, it is "very
severe," she said.  "Somehow we have to be able to condition bail.  We need to have pre-sentence
supervision of batterers; I think that this is do-able but will take some time," Lick said.  And it
certainly would have resource implications for the department; currently, the Westchester County
Probation Department has a total of nine probation officers assigned to handle cases that come
before the County's Family and Criminal Courts.
     Wayne Maxey, district attorney investigator with the San Diego County District
Attorney's Office's Stalking Unit, also said that there is "no formal monitoring system" in place
in San Diego County to supervise stalkers between arrest and trial.  "If [the offender] violates
conditions of bail and we get a call, we will pick him up," Maxey said.  According to Maxey, the
Unit "is not currently looking at dealing with [offender supervision in the] period between arrest
and trial."
     Criminal justice officials indicate that pretrial release conditions and protection orders
alone do not offer adequate safety for stalking victims because, in general, they do not provide
for supervision of the stalker.  "If conditions of bail are violated [by the offender], the bond may
be revoked or increased," but only if the violation comes to the attention of the court, observed
Paziotopolous of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.  Moreover, even when a protection
order is in place, there is no supervision of the accused offender; "we are dependent upon the
victim to report the violation and trigger an arrest," Paziotopolous said.
     Black of the Colorado Springs Police Department said that police and prosecutors there
are "still struggling to keep [stalking] victims safe." For Black, as for Siegel of the Denver
District Attorney's Office, protecting the stalking victim "gets back to [offender] accountability"
and containing the stalking behavior.  One stalker who was recently released from custody was
placed on electronic monitoring and put under 90-hour supervision by Colorado Springs police:
"We were concerned about what [the offender] would do when he first came out [of prison]. We
want to make sure that whether it is a stalking case or a regular DVERT [domestic violence]
case, if there is a violation of the law, [the offender is] going to see us, and it will be a custodial"
sanction if he violates the terms of his release.
Selected Sentencing and Supervision Strategies
     The granting of protection orders appears to be a key element of most States' strategies
for intervening in stalking behavior, according to the criminal justice officials interviewed.
Although in most jurisdictions statutory and resource constraints prohibit the close supervision of
offenders, criminal justice officials say that protection orders serve as a vehicle for moving
immediately to constrain an offender if he violates the terms of the order and threatens the
victim. Martirano of the Westchester County District Attorney's Office said that, in fact,
"criminal contempt violations of protection orders are one of the best things to come along for
dealing with domestic violence cases" when the safety of the victim is at issue.
     Black of the Colorado Springs Police Department said that because violating a protection
order is a felony in Colorado, "if [for example] we have someone with children, and we have a
violation of a no-contact order, arresting criminally for the violation allows [police to make] a
quick turnaround [between the violation and the arrest]." Moreover, in jurisdictions where the
violation of a protection order is a felony, the court may be able to impose a more severe penalty
for that violation than the law allows for the acts that caused the order to be issued.
     However, a protection order will provide little assurance of safety to the victim if the
police are not aware that the order is in place.  Delaware has taken steps to ensure that
information concerning protection orders is available to police through the State's protection
order registry as the orders are issued.  In Delaware, where stalking is a felony, protection
orders are issued by the family court.  The protection order registry is a component of the State's
automated criminal justice information system.
     According to Michael Arrington, director of special court services for the Family Court of
Delaware, protection orders granted in the State go online immediately because the only way that
the order can be generated is by entering the required data into the State's automated protection
order registry.  In fact, Arrington said, "The order gets to the police before it gets to the court."
Arrington explained that Delaware also allows out-of-State protection orders to be entered into
its registry.  Currently, efforts are underway to make the registry's data field compatible with that
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), so that
information on orders granted in Delaware can be transferred automatically to the NCIC,
Arrington explained.
     In Nashville, Tennessee, supervision also is an important element of the Metropolitan
Police Department's overall strategy for investigating cases involving stalking.  According to
Detective Sergeant Mark A. Wynn of the Department's Domestic Violence Division, which uses
a number of counter-stalking surveillance measures to intervene and gather evidence in stalking
cases, prevention of stalking behavior is at the heart of the division's counter-stalking
operations.
Prioritizing Stalking Cases
     The Domestic Violence Division of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office is now in
its second year of operation, according to Paziotopolous.  The office's objective in creating the
Unit was threefold, Paziotopulos explained: first, to recast the office's approach to prosecuting
stalking cases, which has included introducing a vertical prosecution system for handling such
cases; second, to extend services provided by the division to the suburban communities within
the Chicago Metropolitan Area; and third, to put into operation a dedicated domestic violence
felony court.
     Paziotopolous reported that the first two phases of the division's overall plan have been
implemented, with creation of the domestic violence felony court to be undertaken in the future.
The division also plans to develop a lethality assessment protocol for domestic violence cases,
which it ultimately also will apply in stalking cases.  The protocol will help division officials
assess the risk that the offender poses to his victim.
The DVERT Program
     Black of the Colorado Springs Police Department said that not many cases involving
stalking behavior were investigated or prosecuted as stalking cases there in the past.  But all that
is changing under the department's DVERT program.  According to Black, the Colorado Springs
Metropolitan Area, with a population of about 500,000, experiences approximately 15,000
domestic violence incidents annually, of which between 4,700 to 5,000 result in an arrest.  The
DVERT program provides "three different levels of intervention for domestic violence cases,"
Black explained.  Level one is reserved for the most lethal cases, including stalking cases.  "For
the most part, if we have stalking behavior [in a domestic violence case], the case will be handled
as a level one," Black explained.
     Black said that the department has the capacity to "handle [up to] 125 of the most serious
cases at the DVERT level one."  Black said that of the 125 cases assigned to DVERT level one at
any given time, "about 40 percent [have] elements of stalking going on." Colorado Springs'
DVERT program currently is in its second year of operation.  In that two-year period, 227
domestic violence cases have been assigned to level one, some of which, he noted, ultimately are
dropped.  Black said that currently 10 DVERT level one cases are being investigated and
prosecuted under the State's stalking statute.  A fulltime prosecutor has been assigned to handle
stalking cases assigned to the DVERT program.
     Black said that the DVERT program has had a positive effect on the attitudes of criminal
justice officials toward stalking cases.  "When we first started filing [stalking] cases in Colorado
Springs, police and prosecutors were hesitant to proceed under the stalking statute. Police
[didn't] understand stalking cases; police [had] the attitude that they 'know it all' and 'don't tell
us how to do something different than what we are doing.' "  Prosecutors are on the same
learning curve as the police with respect to stalking cases, he said.  "They wanted to go back to
[pursuing charges of] tampering with witnesses or  intimidation in stalking cases because that's
what they were familiar with."  Now, under the department's DVERT program, "we are seeing
the process change," Black said. "It is interesting to watch and see that once officers do one or
two of these cases, they look more and more at stalking."  Prosecutors likewise seem to be more
willing to proceed with stalking cases.
     The next step is the court, Black said.  Judges are beginning to develop an understanding
of stalking cases, Black observed, and  "we are seeing nice changes" in judges' attitudes toward
stalking.  But some judges "still have a way to go," Black said.  "I had a case argued yesterday, a
felony stalking.  The judge was having a problem with why there even is a stalking statute."
A Stalking Strike Force
     Supervision of offenders in cases involving stalking also is the keystone of the operations
of the San Diego County Stalking Strike Force.  According to Maxey, the strike force was
created in 1994, when, frustrated by their inability to intervene in stalking behavior, even in cases
where protection orders had been granted, officials in the District Attorney's Office began
looking for a more aggressive strategy for managing stalking cases.  At that time, California's
stalking statute, the Nation's first, had been "on the books for 4 years but was not being used,"
Maxey explained.  The strike force was born when the District Attorney's Office convened a
group of police officials, prosecutors, judges, victim advocates, mental health professionals, and
others to sit down to map out "what we wanted to do" about stalking in San Diego County.
     In addition to calling for the creation of the strike force, Maxey said, the multidisciplinary
group also recommended more training for criminal justice officials in  handling stalking cases.
One of the principal objectives of  that training was to change criminal justice officials' attitudes
toward stalking.  According to Maxey, at that juncture, many criminal justice officials look at a
stalking case as "a domestic violence thing, and so they ignored it."
     The strike force's Stalking Case Assessment Team (S.C.A.T.) develops strategies for
handling the most difficult stalking cases brought to the unit. The S.C.A.T. which involves police
officials, prosecutors, victim/witness advocates, probation officials, and mental health
professionals-- meets once a month  and serves "as a forum for dealing with problems reported
by victims or police" in stalking cases, Maxey explained.  The members of the S.C.A.T. design
victim safety plans and discuss prosecution strategies for the cases they examine.  A principal
focus of the S.C.A.T.'s review of stalking cases is protection of the victim; S.C.A.T. determines
whether and to what degree an offender poses a threat to his victim.  Maxey said that the
S.C.A.T. also operates on an "on call" basis and may be convened for an unscheduled meeting if
the need arises.
     In February 1998, the San Diego County District Attorney's Office's Stalking Unit
assumed responsibility for handling all stalking cases that arise in San Diego County.  Maxey
said that funding from the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grants has allowed the unit
to assign two fulltime assistant district attorneys and two fulltime district attorney investigators
to the unit.  In addition, grant funds will be used to help the unit build capacities to collect and
analyze statistics on stalking cases.   Maxey said that the offender's initial contact with the unit
alone in some cases will deter further stalking behavior.   Otherwise, through surveillance and
occasional face-to-face contact with the offender, the unit is able to intervene effectively in the
stalking behavior.
Involuntary Commitment
     Wattendorf of the Dover Police Department said that he frequently turns to the mental
health system for assistance in managing cases involving stalking behavior. "We reject a lot of
people [for prosecution under the State's stalking statute] because they are not making explicit
threats [toward the victim]," Wattendorf said.  "Maybe we don't have enough to bring criminal
charges."  If the case can be referred to the mental health system, he continued, "they can look at
stalking behavior [and perhaps] get [the stalker] on medication."
     Wattendorf recalled "one stalking case where we couldn't get much response from the
criminal justice system."  Working through the mental health system, the department was able to
get the accused offender involuntarily committed and placed on medication.  Mental health
issues "are variables that come up a lot" in cases involving stalking, Wattendorf said; it "makes it
easier to go the involuntary [commitment] route" if cause can be found to do so, Wattendorf
observed.  He added, however, that the State's legislature should consider changing relevant
mental health statutes concerning involuntary commitment to specifically include stalking
behavior and to require an assessment of whether the offender poses a danger to himself or to
others.
Managing Offenders Under Supervision
     Nancy Lick, of the Westchester County (New York) Probation Department, observed that
"working with the offender is part of a victim protection strategy."  Lick said that the county's
family and criminal courts both use the same supervision model in managing cases involving
offenders convicted of domestic violence, including batterers who stalk, although the criminal
court offers the highest level of supervision.  Lick said that the objective of her department's
strategy in dealing with offenders is to redirect their anger from the victim to the probation
officer, to put the probation officer between the batterer and the victim.
     Approximately 3,500 domestic violence cases are filed in Westchester County's Family
Court each year, according to Lick and Robert Chace, the assistant commissioner for family
court services with the county's Probation Department.  Lick and Chace noted that domestic
violence cases can be prosecuted concurrently in both the family and criminal courts.   They said
that the family and criminal courts receive more than 100 cases a month that involve an offender
who will require intensive supervision.  Under procedures in place for handling these cases, a
protection order may be issued the same day that the case is filed.
     Lick said that her department's strategy for managing domestic violence cases, including
those that involve stalking, entails direct supervision of offenders by probation officers who are
trained in surveillance techniques.  "We use little if any electronic monitoring in supervising
batterers and offenders whose acts have involved stalking, because it does not provide probation
personnel any information concerning the offender's location in relationship to the victim; with
electronic monitoring," Lick said, "[we're] not monitoring [the offender], [we're] monitoring the
equipment."  She said that her department plans to test the application of new global positioning
system (GPS) technology in supervising offenders. "If we can track someone with GPS, and it is
a serious case, and the victim is willing to go onto the [GPS] system, then we can track where
[the offender] is in relation [to the victim],"  Lick said.  Her Department currently also is using
funding received through the Department of Justice's Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies to
determine the optimum supervision model for batterers.
     According to Gallup, AMEND's mission is to eliminate domestic violence by counseling
perpetrators.  Gallup said that AMEND also provides victim service training, in the context of
which counselors seek "to validate victims' experiences" and provide victims with insight into
the motivations of domestic violence perpetrators.  Gallup said that 75 percent of AMEND's 450
clients are court-ordered into counseling in domestic violence cases.  In order to charge domestic
violence under Colorado statutes, Gallup explained, the victim and the perpetrator must have a
child together or be living in the same domicile or have lived together at some point.
     AMEND's program is clinical in orientation, Gallup explained.  Offenders referred to the
program are subjected to a personality inventory that, he said, may provide clues to their
behavior.  The offender then is placed in group counseling, which might be complemented by
other forms of therapy if, for example, the offender is found to have a drug- or alcohol-related
problem.
     Gallup said supervision is an important element of any sentencing strategy when the
offender is considered to be a continuing risk to the victim and certainly is a central feature of the
program.  At AMEND, "we talk about containment before talking about counseling," Gallup
said.  AMEND's strategy for handling domestic violence and stalking cases hinges upon
"transferring the offender's obsession with the woman to the therapist.  We want to take up a lot
of  [the offender's] time" and divert his attention from his victim.  "But it's hard to do that,"
Gallup observed.  "These guys go to absurd lengths to stalk their victims. Even though we are
having intense contact with them, they still lie to you.  They will hide the fact that they have been
in contact with the victim."
     According to Gallup, many offenders who stalk "have heroic fantasies" of establishing or
reestablishing a relationship with the victim. "Then when they find the victim doing something
with someone else, [the offenders] start the tracking [or stalking] behavior.  That behavior
satisfies [the offenders] sometimes; they get their jollies out of showing the victim who is
exercising control.  Then at some point, the tracking is no longer satisfying, and the stalker's
behavior begins to escalate," he explained.  At AMEND, "we don't want to let that escalation
occur," Gallup said. "As soon as we see [the escalation], we want to stop it."
     Close supervision of an offender who has stalked facilitates early detection of indications
that his behavior is escalating.  These signs would include indications that the offender is having
difficulty at work, has disengaged himself from friends, has abandoned leisure time activities, or
is suicidal.  Once these elements of the stalker's behavior have been identified, Gallup said, "It is
then up to the therapist to work on that with the offender."
     If  AMEND observes signs that the stalking behavior is escalating, the program will
begin to intensify its contact with the offender.  The offender will be moved from group to
individual counseling.  "We might do more day reporting to keep track of what the offender is
doing," Gallup said.
     AMEND's relationship with the probation officer in a given case is a critical element of
the program's overall strategy for working with the offender.  It is important that the counselor
and the probation officer work well and closely together in managing stalking cases, Gallup said.
"We want to make sure that the probation officer intervenes appropriately with the stalker," he
added.
     Gallup recalled one case in which the probation officer advised the stalker that his
probation would be revoked in two weeks.  Having been advised of the pending revocation, the
stalker immediately escalated his pursuit of his victim.
     Gallup said that client confidentiality is a fundamental tenet of the program, but that
program officials, within the constraints of confidentiality, do try "to keep the victim apprised of
what is going on."  Gallup said that if AMEND counselors "have real proof" that the offender is
continuing his stalking behavior and poses an immediate threat to the victim, program officials
would bring this behavior to the attention of the court.  "But we try to get the victim to do
something to provide evidence [directly to the court] that she is being stalked," Gallup said.
     He reported that the Colorado Judicial Probation Department "has demanded that
domestic violence cases be looked at as special supervision orders" and that offenders in these
cases be screened to assess their potential dangerousness and threat to their victims. Gallup said
that four pilot district court probation projects are being undertaken in Colorado in which a risk
assessment tool developed by the Institute of Family Violence in British Columbia will be used
with offenders in domestic violence cases.  If the pilot projects prove successful, use of the
assessment tool will be transferred to other jurisdictions in the State.
     Gallup said that he plans to use funding provided through the STOP Violence Against
Women Formula Grants to train criminal justice officials in how to manage a stalking case.
"Getting people to understand how to put together [stalking] cases is part of the training [that is
needed], because they don't understand how to do this," Gallup said.
     AMEND also is participating in an initiative to examine why stalking cases are being
dropped in the Denver Metropolitan Area.  Gallup said that in 1997, 100 stalking cases were
filed, of which 45 were dropped.  Gallup said Denver officials want "to look at why these cases
were not filed or were dropped" as a basis for determining whether there are adjustments that
should be made in existing case investigation and prosecution strategies.
Conclusion
     Supervision of the offender appears to be at the heart of current sentencing policy for
disposing cases involving stalking.  However, criminal justice officials interviewed for this
report indicated that numerous legal, practical, and resource issues must be resolved in
implementing sentencing and supervision strategies that meet the dual objectives of protecting
the victim and holding the offender accountable for his actions.
     Notwithstanding the national attention on stalking for most of the 1990s, these officials
say that many police officers, judges, and prosecutors neither fully understand nor appreciate the
potential dangerousness of stalking behavior.  In addition, these officials point to supervision as
an issue that must be addressed at every stage in managing stalking cases: from the arrest of the
offender, to his conviction and sentencing, to his release back into the community.
     Finally, criminal justice officials say that it is imperative that steps be taken to develop
and implement protocols and procedures for collecting and analyzing statistics and other
information concerning cases involving stalking.   The efforts of officials to formulate and apply
sound and potentially effective sentencing policies for handling stalking cases are likely to be
seriously undermined by the lack of data on the prevalence of such cases and their handling
within the criminal justice system.
                           CHAPTER 4
             THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S RESPONSE
               TO STALKING AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
     The Department of Justice is continuing its vigorous efforts to combat violence against
women, including stalking and domestic violence.  Using the tools and resources at its disposal,
the Department is committed to protecting women and holding offenders accountable for their
criminal actions. Toward that end, the Department's various components are providing direct and
indirect assistance to Americans across the country to carry out the mandate and spirit of VAWA
and the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996.
     As mentioned in Chapter 2, the Department is aggressively pursuing stalkers who violate
the Federal interstate stalking statute.  To date, nine offenders have been charged under this law.
In addition, 82 cases have been pursued under VAWA's criminal provisions.  Convictions or
guilty pleas have been won in 49 of these cases.
     The Department is committed to raising awareness and concern about the nature and
extent of domestic violence and stalking, both within and outside the agency.  To educate its
employees about these crimes, an information fair was held in October 1997 as part of Domestic
Violence Awareness Month.  Department staff also traveled around the country to heighten
public awareness and concern about domestic violence and stalking.  In addition, the Attorney
General initiated a joint effort between the Justice Department and the Department of Health and
Human Services, through CDC, to compile and distribute statistics on domestic violence.  As
part of this ongoing effort to learn what is working to prevent and reduce domestic violence, the
Department is conducting an evaluation of national efforts to meet the goals and objectives of
VAWA.  The Department is also encouraging communities to develop systematic methods for
evaluating their efforts.
Research Investments
     The Department, through OJP, is supporting basic research projects, such as the NVAW
Survey discussed in Chapter 1, to provide valuable information to enhance our understanding and
facilitate development of effective strategies for prevention and intervention in domestic violence
and stalking cases.  Moreover, this research helps guide public policy decisionmaking at the
Federal, State, and local levels.
     NIJ is also funding a research project that examines stalking from the victim's viewpoint.
Conducted by West Chester University in Pennsylvania, the project is examining the experiences
of women who have been victims of stalking by former intimates.  Participants were recruited by
placing advertisements in newspapers, distributing flyers at criminal justice and victim service
agencies, and writing letters to women who had sought protection orders.  The study sample
includes 187 women victims of stalking by former intimates.  Extensive, confidential interviews
lasting 1 to 3 hours were conducted with the women.  The results of the study will be discussed
in future annual reports.
     Another NIJ-funded study is examining the extent and nature of sexual victimization of
college women nationally.  This study, being conducted by researchers at the University of
Cincinnati, involves a national telephone survey of 4,446 women attending 2- and 4-year colleges
and universities.  It measures the incidence of stalking, as well as other forms of sexual
victimization.  The respondents were asked questions such as:  Since school began in Fall 1996,
has anyone--from a stranger to an ex-boyfriend--repeatedly followed you, watched you, phoned,
written, e-mailed, or otherwise communicated with you in a way that seemed obsessive and made
you afraid or concerned for your safety?  If the respondent answered affirmatively, she was asked
additional questions about the nature of the stalking incident for each person who stalked her.
Results of this study will be included in future annual reports.
Support for State and Local Efforts
     Consistent with the vision of VAWA, the Department is working in partnership with
communities across the country to enhance Federal, State, and local efforts to prevent and
eliminate all forms of violence against women, including domestic violence and stalking.  The
Department of Justice encourages all segments of the community to collaborate, including victim
service providers and advocates, police officers, prosecutors, judges, court administrators, parole
and probation officers, health care providers, educators, and others involved in the struggle to
end domestic violence and stalking.  Collaboration is especially important in the criminal justice
system to leverage the coercive power of the entire legal system to enhance women's safety and
hold perpetrators accountable.  The various partners within the criminal justice system must look
beyond their traditional roles and responsibilities to explore innovative strategies for developing
effective responses that are at all times guided by concerns for women's safety.   Ultimately,
assuring the victim's safety requires that every part of the system perform its functions fully.  But
beyond that, each partner in the system must consider what else can be done to ensure the safety
of the victim.  The courts can signal the seriousness of a stalker's or a batterer's crime by
combining strong traditional sanctions with new punishments, such as longer prison sentences
coupled with victim restitution or close, ongoing monitoring of the perpetrator.
     Through OJP, the Department of Justice provides resources to investigate cases,
prosecute perpetrators, provide services to victims of domestic violence and stalking, and explore
new approaches to intervention and prevention of violence against women.  To date, the
Department has committed more than $430 million in direct grants to States and communities
through OJP's Violence Against Women Grants Office (VAWGO).  A recent evaluation of
VAWGO's largest program, the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grants, revealed that
since fiscal year 1995, at least 234 programs have received a total of more than $3.1 million to
address stalking, either by itself or in combination with domestic violence or sexual assault or
both.
     To enhance the effectiveness of its grants, VAWGO offers extensive education and
technical assistance to its grantees and subgrantees on an ongoing basis.  For example, the
American Prosecutors' Research Institute (APRI) was commissioned to hold several workshops
on effective prosecution of domestic violence and stalking cases.  In these highly interactive
workshops, some of the leading practitioners in the fields of stalking and domestic violence
shared their experiences and insights on prosecuting these cases successfully.
     In October 1997, the Department of Justice sponsored a national conference on the full
faith and credit provisions of VAWA, which require jurisdictions to honor protection orders
issued by another State, local, or tribal entity as if the orders were their own.  To ensure broad
participation and collaboration among the various components of the legal system, the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), the Battered Women's Justice Project
(BWJP), the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ), the Conference of State Court Administrators
(COSCA), the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), and the State Justice Institute (SJI)
joined forces with the Department to cosponsor this conference.  It brought together teams of
police officers, prosecutors, judges, and victim service providers and advocates from 45 States, 4
territories, the District of Columbia, 21 individual tribal governments, and 4 tribal consortia
representing 37 pueblos, Alaska native villages, and reservations.  More than 400 participants
planned and discussed strategies for aggressively implementing the full faith and credit
provisions in their respective jurisdictions.
     In response to continuing requests from grantees for information about effective strategies
for addressing stalking and domestic violence and fully implementing the provisions of VAWA,
OJP is developing a promising practices manual.  The manual provides checklists and profiles
programs that have incorporated many of the identified practices.  Parts of this manual are
available on the Violence Against Women Resource Page, a new "cyberlibrary" located on the
VAWGO homepage at http://www.usdoj.ojp.gov/vawgo.  The complete manual is expected to be
ready in summer 1998.
     In addition, resources provided though the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) are assisting communities by supporting:
          a project to develop services and support for deaf victims of domestic violence and sexual
     assault in five cities around the country;
          a project to develop a model training curriculum to improve the responses of attorneys to
     victims of elder abuse and domestic violence;
          a project to develop domestic violence education programs for dentists, physicians, and
     other health care providers;
          a project to develop training programs and materials related to domestic violence fatality
     reviews; and
          development of lethality assessment tools for police officers.
National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction Program (Stalker
Reduction)
     The Department of Justice, through OJP's BJS, is continuing to assist States in
strengthening their efforts to collect data on domestic violence and stalking and enter this
information into local, State, and National databases consistent with the National Stalker and
Domestic Violence Reduction Program (Section 40602 of VAWA), Title IV of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.  The program is administered as part of the
National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), which assists States in upgrading
criminal history records.
     As of the end of fiscal year 1997, 40 States and the District of Columbia had received
funding under NCHIP to support the collection of data on domestic violence offenses, including
protection orders and any violations of these orders.  For instance, in one State, funds are being
used to develop an automated system for data storage and retrieval of protection orders related to
domestic violence and stalking related.  Another State is developing and implementing a
temporary restraining order warrants system.
Indirect Support
     As part of its ongoing efforts to document the effectiveness of various strategies and
practices to prevent and reduce domestic violence, OJP is once again conducting a national
evaluation of its STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grants.  This evaluation assesses
State accomplishments in meeting the goals and objectives of VAWA. The long-term evaluation
of the STOP program is critical to empirically gauging the effectiveness of the approach
envisioned by the authors of VAWA to enhance victim safety and hold offenders accountable.
     OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) commissioned APRI and the NCJFCJ to
produce a manual for communities on developing coordinated community approaches to violence
against women.  "Confronting Violence Against Women: A Community Action Approach"
provides guidance on starting a new council or task force and maintaining and enhancing existing
councils, and it includes examples of innovative coordinated approaches.  Copies of this report
may be ordered by calling the BJA Clearinghouse at (800) 688-4252.
     To educate future lawyers about domestic violence, OVC funded the American Bar
Association's Commission on Domestic Violence to develop a report providing information
about innovative programs law schools have implemented to teach about domestic violence and
assist victims of these crimes.  Also included are recommendations for replicating these
programs in other law schools.  The publication, "When Will They Ever Learn?  Educating to
End Domestic Violence," can be obtained by calling the OVC Resource Center at (800) 627-
6872.
     To enhance information exchanges between criminal justice professionals and batterer
treatment providers, NIJ published a report on batterer intervention programs.  This report is
designed to help prosecutors, judges, and probation officers better understand the issues
surrounding batterer intervention and to enable them to make appropriate referrals to programs.
Copies of "Batterer Intervention: Program Approaches and Criminal Justice Strategies," are
available through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) by calling (800)
851-3420.
Conclusion
     The Department of Justice will continue to take the lead in addressing stalking and
domestic violence, and remains dedicated to maximizing the impact of Federal resources by
providing communities across the country with the funds and support they need to respond to
these crimes as effectively as current research and evaluation permit.   As the Department's
primary source of financial and programmatic assistance, OJP is committed to working in
partnership with State and local jurisdictions, and with nonprofit and for-profit entities to
develop coordinated, comprehensive efforts to prevent, detect, and stop violence against women,
including stalking and domestic violence.  In addition, through BJS and NIJ, OJP will continue to
build on current knowledge and understanding of these crimes so that communities will be
encouraged to explore creative, locally-driven solutions that are always mindful of victim safety
and offender accountability.
                           CHAPTER 5
                         LOOKING AHEAD
     In the past 2 decades, stalking and domestic violence have gained increasing recognition
as significant problems confronting our society.  In response to this heightened awareness, State
laws have been enacted, and subsequently refined in some instances, to make stalking and
domestic violence explicitly illegal and to send a signal that such behavior will not be tolerated
by our society.  As discussed earlier in this report, all the State antistalking statutes have
withstood legal challenges.  These State laws have been further supplemented by VAWA and the
Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996.  Since enactment of these laws,
considerable resources have been devoted at the Federal, State and local levels to help prevent,
detect, and end stalking and domestic violence and to learn more about the extent and intricacies
of these crimes to further strengthen our response.
     Our initial investments in research have yielded a clearer picture of the prevalence and
characteristics of stalking, which will help shape policies and interventions.  The results of the
NVAW Survey produced some compelling results with serious policy and further research
implications as follows:
          Stalking is a much bigger problem than previously assumed and should be treated as a
     major criminal justice problem and public health concern.
          Stalkers often do not threaten their victims verbally or in writing; therefore, credible
     threat requirements should be eliminated from antistalking statutes to make it easier to
     prosecute such cases.
          In the vast majority of stalking cases, the victim and perpetrator know each other and are
     usually current or former intimates; therefore, future research should focus on stalking
     between intimates and acquaintances rather than stalking of celebrities or politicians.
          In cases involving intimates, the strong link between stalking and other forms of violence
     between the victim and stalker suggests the need for comprehensive training of police
     officers, prosecutors, judges, parole and probation officers, and other criminal justice
     personnel on the specific safety needs of stalking victims.
          Stalking victims attributed the termination of stalking to informal police interventions
     such as police warnings, rather than to formal interventions, such as arrests, indicating the
     need for more research on the effectiveness of various legal interventions in different
     situations.
          Native American and Alaska native women were more likely to report being stalked than
     women of other racial or ethnic backgrounds, suggesting the need for more research to
     establish the degree of variance and determine how much of the variance may be
     explained by demographic, social, and environmental factors.
          There is some evidence that antistalking laws have increased the number of such crimes
     reported to authorities, but more research is needed to determine the full extent of the
     impact of these laws on reporting.
          The mental health community must receive comprehensive training on appropriate
     treatment for victims of stalking.
     The Department of Justice encourages States to consider making serious, persistent
stalking behavior a felony charge; setting bail requirements at higher amounts; factoring the risk
posed by a stalker; and giving high priority to victim safety and offender accountability in all
decisionmaking at every level of the system.  The Department encourages State and local
jurisdictions to train police officers, prosecutors, parole and probation officers, and judges about
the complexity and potential risks involved in stalking cases and the efficacy of developing and
implementing collaborative models to respond more effectively to domestic violence and
stalking.
     States are also encouraged to consider the unique characteristics of stalking crimes and
broaden the eligibility criteria for victim compensation programs.  Although many States
compensate victims of stalking through victim compensation programs, some States limit
eligibility for these programs to victims who have been physically injured.
     As the findings of the NVAW Survey, as well as other sources, demonstrate, there
remains a paucity of reliable information about effective intervention and preventive strategies
for responding to stalking.  Accordingly, the Department is committed to continuing funding
basic research and providing program support and evaluation.  Consistent with this commitment,
future editions of this report will include the following:
          A comprehensive review of State court decisions since 1970 interpreting or ruling on the
     constitutionality of stalking and related State legislation, including harassment and
     threatening laws.  The review will provide capsule summaries of each court holding and
     State-reported citations.  Analysis of the decisions will identify trends in decisions and
     will highlight the extent to which court decisions on stalking match relevant provisions of
     the NIJ-sponsored Model Antistalking Code.
          A national survey of local police and prosecutor agencies to determine the extent of any
     special efforts to combat stalking.  The analysis will provide statistical and descriptive
     information about special stalking projects, such as the degree to which projects focus on
     stranger stalking or on domestic-violence-related stalking.  The study will also identify
     those projects of greatest interest to other practitioners.
          Case histories of responses by police officers and prosecutors to "typical" stalking cases.
          The results of the ongoing research being conducted by West Chester University and the
     University of Cincinnati mentioned in the previous chapter.
     All of these efforts signal the Department's commitment and the high priority it places on
developing a reliable body of knowledge to guide public policy decisionmaking and assist State
and local jurisdictions in their efforts to prevent and end violence against women and provide
meaningful protections to victims of such violence.  The Department will continue to encourage
communities across the country to keep building strong collaboration among victim service
providers, health care providers, police officers, prosecutors, judges, probation and parole
officers, and others within and outside the criminal justice community.  Communities will be
encouraged to think creatively to develop innovative ideas for preventing, detecting, and ending
violence against women, including domestic violence and stalking.                             NOTES
APPENDIX A
Antistalking Legislation Update for States and Selected Territories
March 1998
State
Legislation
Legal challenges
Basis of challenge
Outcome
Alabama
Ala. Code  13 A-6-90
(1997) (enacted 1992)
Ala. Code  13 A-6-91
(1997) (enacted 1992)
Ala. Code  13 A-6-92
(1997) (enacted 1992)
Ala. Code  13 A-6-93 (1997) (enacted 1992)
Ala. Code  13 A-6-94
(1997) (enacted 1992)
Stalking
Aggravated stalking
Definitions
Construction; similar provisions
Construction; constitutionality of article
No new challenges
Alaska
Alaska Stat.
 11.41.260 (1995)
(enacted 1993)
Alaska Stat.
 11.41.270 (1995)
(enacted 1993)
Stalking in the first degree
Stalking in the second degree
No new challenges
Arizona
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.
 13-2921 (West 1997)
(enacted 1992)
Harassment; clarification; definition
No challenges
Arkansas
Ark. Code Ann.
 5-71-229 (Michie 1997)
(enacted 1993)
Ark. Code Ann.
 5-13-301 (Michie 1994) (enacted 1975)
Ark. Code Ann.
 5-71-208 (Michie 1994) (enacted 1975)
Ark. Code Ann.
 5-71-209 (Michie 1994) (enacted 1975)
Stalking
Terroristic threatening
Harassment
Harassing communications
No challenges
California
Cal. Penal Code  646.9
(West 1998)
(enacted 1990)
Cal. Penal Code   646.91 (West 1998)
(added 1997)
Cal. Penal Code   646.92 (West 1998)
(added 1995)
Cal. Penal Code  42
(West 1998)
(enacted 1988)
Cal. Civil Code  1708.7 (West 1998)
(enacted 1993)
Stalking
Stalking emergency protective orders
Notification to victim or witness of release of person convicted of stalking or domestic violence
Elements of offense; punishment; "immediate family" defined
Stalking; tort action; damages and equitable remedies
People v. Falck, 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 624 (Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
People v. McCray, 67 Cal. Rptr. 872 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)
Vagueness and overbreadth
Ambiguous construction
Statute upheld
Statute upheld
Colorado
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann.
18-9-111 (West 1998)
Harassment - stalking
No new challenges
Connecticut
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann.
 53a-181-c (West (1998) (enacted 1992)
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann.
 53a-181-d (West 1998) (enacted 1992)
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann.     53a-181e (West 1998)
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann.     54-1k (West 1998)
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann.
 53a-40d (West 1998)
(enacted 1995)
Stalking in the first degree
Stalking in the second degree: Class A misdemeanor
Stalking in the third degree: Class B misdemeanor
Issuance of protective orders
Persistent offenders of crimes involving assault, stalking, threatening, harassment of criminal violation of protective order.  Authorized sentences
State v. Marsala, 688 A.2d 336 (Conn. App. 1997)
State v. Cummings, 701 A.2d 663 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)
Vagueness and overbreadth
Vagueness
Statute upheld
Statute upheld
Delaware
Del. Code Ann. tit. 11,
 13121(1997)
enacted 1992)
Stalking; Class F Felony
State v. Alvarado, No. VK93-12-0227-RI, 9312007812, 1997 WL 524128 (Del. Super. Ct. July 23, 1997)
Vagueness
Statute upheld
District of Columbia
D.C. Code Ann.             22-504 (b)                 (1997) (enacted 1992)
Assault or threatened      assault in a menacing
manner; stalking
No new challenges
Florida
Fla. Stat. Ann.  784.048 (West 1998)
(enacted 1992)
Stalking; definitions;
penalties
No new challenges
Georgia
Ga. Code Ann.
 16-5-90 (1997)
(enacted 1993)
Ga. Code Ann.
 16-5-91 (1997)
(amended 1995)
Ga. Code Ann.
 16-5-93 (1997) (amended 1997)
Stalking
Aggravated stalking
Victim notification of     release or escaped stalker
No new challenges
Guam
9 Guam Code Ann.        19.69 (1995, 1996)
9 Guam Code Ann. 19.70 (1995, 1996)
Definitions
Stalking
No challenges
Hawaii
Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann.
 711-1106 (Michie 1997) (enacted 1992)
Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann.
 711-1106.4  (Michie 1997) (enacted 1992)
Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann.
 711-1106.5 (Michie 1997) (enacted 1992)
Harassment
Aggravated harassment by stalking
Harassment by stalking
No challenges
Idaho
Idaho Code
 18-7905 (1995)
(enacted 1992)
Stalking; definitions; penalties
No challenges
Illinois
720 Ill. Ann. Stat.
para. 5/12-7.3
(West 1997)
(enacted 1992)
720 Ill. Ann. Stat.
para. 5/12-7.4
(West 1997)
(enacted 1992)
Stalking
Aggravated stalking
People v. Nakajima, No. 4-97-0584, 1998 WL 67402 (Ill. App. Ct. Feb. 19, 1998)
People v. Zamudio, 689 N.E.2d 254 (Ill. 1997)
People v. Rand, 683 N.E.2d 1243 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)
Vagueness and overbreadth
Vagueness and overbreadth
Vagueness and overbreadth
Statute upheld
Statute upheld
Statute upheld
Indiana
Ind. Code  35-45-10-5
(1996) (enacted 1993)
Ind. Code  35-45-10-1
(1996) (enacted 1993)
Ind. Code  35-45-10-2
(1996) (enacted 1993)
Ind. Code  35-45-10-3
(1996) (enacted 1993)
Ind. Code  35-45-10-4
(1996) (enacted 1993)
Violation-penalties
"Stalk"; defined
"Harassment"; defined
"Impermissible contact"; defined
"Victim"; defined
No new challenges
Iowa
Iowa Code Ann.
 708.11 (West 1997)
Stalking
No challenges
Kansas
Kan. Stat. Ann.
 21-3438 (1996)
(amended 1995)
Stalking
No new challenges
Kentucky
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.
 508.130
(Michie 1996)
(enacted 1992)
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.
 508.140
(Michie 1996)
(enacted 1992)
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.
 508.150
(Michie 1996)
(enacted 1992)
Definitions
Stalking in the first degree
Stalking in the second degree
Monhollen v. Commonwealth, 947 S.W.2d 61 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997)
Vagueness
Statute upheld
Louisiana
La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
 14:40.2 (West 1997)
(enacted 1992)
Stalking
No challenges
Maine
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.
tit. 17-A  210-A
(West 1997)
(enacted 1995)
Stalking
No new challenges
Maryland
Md. Code Ann.,
art. 27,  121B (1997)
(effective 1993)
Stalking
No challenges
Md. Code Ann.,
art. 27,  121A (1997)
(effective 1995)
Harassment
Md. Code Ann.,            Art. 27,  768 (1997) (amended 1997)
Protection for stalking victim if defendant is released before trial
Massachusetts
Mass. Gen. Laws Ann.
ch. 265,  43 (West 1997) (effective 1992)
Mass. Gen. Laws Ann.    ch. 265,  62B (West 1997) (effective 1996)
Stalking; punishment
Stalking; jurisdiction
No new challenges
Michigan
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.  600.2950
(West 1997)
(amended 1997)
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 600.2950a
(West 1997)
(amended 1997)
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.  750.411h
(West 1997)
(amended 1998)
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.  750.411i (West 1997) (effective 1993)
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.  600.2954 (West 1997) (effective 1993)
Personal protection orders
Stalking or aggravated  stalking
Stalking; definitions;   violations; penalties; probation, term,
conditions; evidence,
rebuttable presumption;
penalty additional
Aggravated stalking; course of conduct; violation; penalties; probation; rebuttable presumption
Stalking or aggravated stalking, civil actions; damages; victim defined
No new challenges
Minnesota
Minn. Stat. Ann.
 609.749 (West 1998)  (effective 1992)
Minn. Stat. Ann.
 609.7495 (West 1998) (effective 1992)
Harassment and stalking
crimes
Definitions
State v. Machholz, No. CX-96-1865, 1998 WL 19751 (Minn. Jan. 22, 1998)
Vagueness and overbreadth
Statute harassment provisions struck down
Mississippi
Miss. Code Ann.
 97-3-107 (1997)
(effective 1992)
Stalking
No challenges
Missouri
Mo. Ann. Stat.
 565.225 (West 1997)   (enacted 1993)
Crime of stalking-    definitions, penalty, arrest
No new challenges
Montana
Mont. Code Ann.
 45-5-220 (1997)
(enacted 1992)
Stalking-exemption-penalty
No challenges
Nebraska
Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann.
 28-311.02 - 28-311.05 (1993)
(Michie 1997)
Stalking; legislative intent; terms, defined; violations, penalties; not applicable to certain conduct
No challenges
Nevada
Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann.
 200.575 (Michie 1997) (enacted 1993)
Stalking; definitions; penalties
No challenges
New Hampshire
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
 633:3-a (1997)
(enacted 1993)
Stalking
No challenges
New Jersey
N.J. Stat. Ann.
 2C:12-10 (West 1998)
(enacted 1993)
N.J. Stat. Ann.
 2C:12-10.1 (West 1998) (enacted 1993)
Stalking
Stalking restraining order
State v. Saunders, 695 A.2d 722 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997)
Vagueness and overbreadth
Statute upheld
New Mexico
N.M. Stat. Ann.
 30-3A-3, 3.1, 4.0        (Michie 1997)               (enacted 1993)
Stalking; aggravated     stalking, penalties;       exceptions
No challenges
New York
N.Y. Penal Law  120.13 (McKinney 1997) (enacted 1993)
N.Y. Penal Law  120.14 (McKinney 1997) (enacted 1993)
N.Y. Penal Law  120.15 (McKinney 1997) (enacted 1993)
Menacing in the first degree
Menacing in the second degree
Menacing in the third  degree
No challenges
North Carolina
N.C. Gen. Stat.
 14-277.3 (Supp. 1997)
(enacted 1993)
Stalking
No challenges
North Dakota
N.D. Cent. Code
 12.1-17-07.1 (Supp.
1993) (enacted 1993)
Stalking
No challenges
Ohio
Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
 2903.211-.215              (West 1998)
(enacted 1992)
Menacing by stalking;    protection orders
State v. Smith, No. 96 C.A. 83, 1998 WL 78657 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 11, 1998)
State v. Schwab, No. CA96-12-2631997 WL 249951 (Ohio Ct. App. May 12, 1997)
Vagueness and overbreadth
Vagueness
Statute upheld
Statute upheld
Oklahoma
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21,
 1173 (West 1997)
(enacted 1992)
Stalking penalties
No new challenges
Oregon
Or. Rev. Stat.
 163.730-.750 (1995)
(enacted 1993)
Or. Rev. Stat.
 30.866  (1995)
(enacted 1993)
Stalking
Stalking protective order
Shook v. Ackert, No. CA A93886, 1998 WL 18057 (Or. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 1998)
State v. Rangel, 934 P.2d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 1997)
Overbreadth
Overbreadth
Statute upheld
Statute upheld
Pennsylvania
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.
 2709 (West 1998)
(enacted 1993)
Harassment and stalking
Commonwealth v. Miller, 689 A.2d 238 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997)
Overbreadth; right to travel
Statute upheld
Rhode Island
R.I. Gen. Laws
 11-59-1 - 11-59-3 (Supp. 1994)
(enacted 1992)
Stalking
No new challenges
South Carolina
S.C. Code Ann.
 16-3-1070 (Law. Co-op 1993) (enacted 1992)
S.C. Code Ann.              16-3-1700 - 16-3-1-1840 (Law. Co-op 1996)
Stalking
Definitions; penalties;
restraining order
No challenges
South Dakota
S.D. Codified Laws
 22-19A-1 - 22-19A-7 (Michie 1997)
Stalking as misdemeanor; violation of restraining order and subsequent convictions as felony; "harasses," "course of conduct," and "credible threat" defined; stalking a child as misdemeanor
No new challenges
Tennessee
Tenn. Code Ann.
 39-17-315 (Supp. 1995) (amended 1995)
Tenn. Code Ann.
 36-3-606 (Supp. 1995) (enacted 1996)
Stalking
Scope of protection order
No new challenges
Texas
Tex. Penal Code Ann.
 42.072 (West 1997)
(enacted 1995)
Tex. Crim. P. Code Ann. art. 17.46 (West 1997)
Tex. Crim. P. Code Ann. art. 56.11 (West 1997)
Stalking
Conditions for a defendant charged with stalking
Notification to victim of release or escape of defendant
No new challenges
Utah
Utah Code Ann.
 76-5-106.5 (1996)       (enacted 1992)
Definitions - Crime of    Stalking
Salt Lake City v. Lopez, 935 P.2d 1259 (Utah Ct. App. 1997)
Vagueness and overbreadth
Statute upheld
Vermont
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13,
 1061-1063 (1997)
(enacted 1993)
Definitions; stalking; aggravated stalking
No challenges
Virgin Islands
V.I. Code Ann. tit. 104  2071 (1995)
V.I. Code Ann. tit. 104  2072 (1995)
V.I. Code Ann. tit. 104  91 (1995)
Definitions
Stalking prohibited; degrees of offense; punishment
Remedies for domestic violence
No challenges
Virginia
Va. Code Ann.
 18.2-60.3
(Michie 1997)
(amended 1996)
Va. Code Ann.
 19.2-152.8                 (Michie 1997)
(added 1997)
Va. Code Ann.
 19.2-152.9
(Michie 1997)
(added 1997)
Stalking; penalty
Emergency protective     orders authorized in cases of stalking
Preliminary protective     orders in cases of stalking
Parker v. Commonwealth, 485 S.E.2d 150 (Va. Ct. App. 1997)
Vagueness and overbreadth
Statute upheld
Washington
Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
 9A.46.110 (West 1995) (amended 1994)
Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
 13.40.215 (West 1995) (amended 1997)
Stalking
Juveniles found to have committed violent or sex offense or stalking
State v. Paul, No. 35225-3-I, 1997 WL 54740 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 1997)
Vagueness and overbreadth
Statute upheld
West Virginia
W.Va. Code
 61-2-9a (Supp. 1995)
(enacted 1992)
Stalking, penalties; definitions
No challenges
Wisconsin
Wis. Stat. Ann.
 940.32 (West 1998)
(enacted 1993)
Wis. Stat. Ann.
 165.829 (West 1998)   (enacted 1993)
Stalking
Stalking & harassment   information
State v. Rapey, No. 97-0279-CR, 1998 WL 86283 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 1998)
State v. Ruesch, 571 N.W.2d 898 (Wis. 1997)
Vagueness and overbreadth
Vagueness and overbreadth
Statute upheld
Statute upheld
Wyoming
Wyo. Stat. Ann.
 6-2-506 (Michie 1997) (enacted 1993)
Wyo. Stat. Ann.
 1-1-126 (Michie 1997) (enacted 1993)
Wyo. Stat. Ann.
 7-3-506 - 7-3-511
(Michie 1997)
(enacted 1993)
Stalking; penalty
Civil liability
Protection orders for
stalking victims
No new challenges
APPENDIX B
State Stalking Laws:  Criminal and Civil Laws by Level of Offense
State
Criminal Laws
Civil Protective Laws
Alabama
B or C felony
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor
Alaska
C felony for limited set of stalking crimes, or
A misdemeanor                                         Enhanced penalty for stalking minor (age 16)
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor
Arizona
Felony 4 or 5
Harassment orders available; contempt penalty for violation
Arkansas
B or C felony
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor
California
Felony or misdemeanor; 2nd misdemeanor stalking has 4 year maximum
Stalking and harassment orders available; violation of order has 4 year maximum
Colorado
Felony 6; 2nd is Class 5 felony
Stalking order available; violation is Class 6 felony
Connecticut
D felony for limited set of stalking crimes, or misdemeanor
Enhanced penalty for stalking minor (age 16)
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor; any violation of criminal protective order is felony
Delaware
C or D felony for limited set of stalking crimes,  or F felony
2nd violation of domestic violence protection order is felony
District of Columbia
Misdemeanor; increase up to 10 months and 3 years for 2nd and 3rd offenses
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor
Florida
Felony 3 or misdemeanor 1
Enhanced penalty for stalking minor (age 16)
Stalking order available; violation of order is misdemeanor
Georgia
Felony for limited set of stalking crimes, or misdemeanor
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor
Hawaii
Misdemeanor; 2nd offense against same victim in violation of order is C felony
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor
Idaho
Misdemeanor; 2nd is felony
Stalking protective order available; Violation of order is misdemeanor; 2nd is felony
Illinois
Class 3 or 4 felony
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor
Indiana
D felony for limited set of stalking crimes, or A misdemeanor; D felony for 2nd misdemeanor stalking offense
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor
Iowa
D felony for limited set of stalking crimes, or aggravated misdemeanor
Enhanced penalty for stalking minor (age 18)
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor
Kansas
Class 10 felony; Class 9 felony for order violation; 2nd offense and same victim is Class 8 felony
Criminal trespass in violation of domestic violence order is misdemeanor
Kentucky
D felony for limited set of stalking crimes, or A misdemeanor
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is felony
Louisiana
Felony for limited set of stalking crimes, or misdemeanor
Enhanced penalty for stalking minor (age 12)
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order may be criminal contempt of court
Maine
Class D crime (1 year maximum); 3rd is Class C crime (5 year maximum)
Harassment protection order available; violation of order is Class D crime
Maryland
Misdemeanor (5 year maximum)
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor
Massachusetts
Felony; enhancement for order violation
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is felony
Michigan
Felony or misdemeanor
Enhanced penalty for stalking of minor by adult
(age 18)
Stalking protective order available; no statutory penalty set
Minnesota
Felony or gross misdemeanor
Enhanced penalty for stalking minor (age 18)
Stalking protective order available; violation of order is misdemeanor
Mississippi
Misdemeanor
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order may be criminal contempt of court
Missouri
D felony or A misdemeanor
Stalking protective order available; violation of order is A misdemeanor; 2nd in 5 years is D felony
Montana
Misdemeanor; 2nd is felony
Stalking protection order available; violation of order is misdemeanor
Nebraska
Class 1 misdemeanor; 2nd is class 4 felony
Stalking protection order available; violation of order is misdemeanor
Nevada
B felony or misdemeanor
Stalking protective order available; violation of temporary order is misdemeanor; permanent order violation is C felony
New Hampshire
Misdemeanor; 2nd is B felony
Stalking protective order available; misdemeanor penalty; 2nd is felony
New Jersey
3rd or 4th degree crime
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor
New Mexico
Felony for limited set of stalking crimes, or misdemeanor; 2nd misdemeanor level stalking is Felony 4
Enhanced penalty for stalking minor (age 16)
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor
New York
B misdemeanor
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is felony if injury, otherwise is misdemeanor
North Carolina
Misdemeanor A1 or 2; 2nd is felony
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor

North Dakota
C felony for restricted set of stalking crimes, or misdemeanor
Disorderly conduct order available; violation of order is felony
Ohio
Misdemeanor 1; 2nd is felony 5
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order or no-contact criminal protection order is misdemeanor 1; 3rd violation is felony
Oklahoma
Felony for limited set of stalking crimes, or misdemeanor; 2nd misdemeanor stalking is felony
Stalking protective order available; violation of order is misdemeanor
Oregon
A misdemeanor; 2nd is C felony
Stalking protective order available; violation is A misdemeanor or C felony
Pennsylvania
Misdemeanor 2nd is felony
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is criminal contempt of court
Rhode Island
Misdemeanor; 2nd is felony
Stalking protective order available; violation of order is felony
South Carolina
Felony for limited set of stalking crimes, or misdemeanor; 2nd misdemeanor stalking in 7 years is felony
Stalking protective order available; violation of order is misdemeanor
South Dakota
Misdemeanor; 2nd is felony 5
Stalking protective order available; violation of order is felony 6 if assault or stalking violation of abuse order; misdemeanor otherwise
Tennessee
A misdemeanor; 2nd is C felony (if same victim) or E felony
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order with assault is felony, otherwise is misdemeanor
Texas
A misdemeanor; 2nd is felony 3
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order with assault is felony, otherwise is misdemeanor; 3rd violation of order is felony
Utah
Felony for restricted set of stalking crimes, or misdemeanor
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor
Vermont
Felony
Enhanced penalty for stalking minor (age 16)
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order with assault is felony, otherwise is misdemeanor
Virginia
Class 1 or 2 misdemeanor; 3rd is felony 6
Stalking protective order available; violation of order is misdemeanor 1
Washington
C felony for limited set of stalking crimes, or gross misdemeanor; 2nd misdemeanor stalking is C felony
Harassment Protective order available; violation of order is C felony
West Virginia
Misdemeanor; 3rd in 5 years is felony
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order calls for enhanced misdemeanor penalties
Wisconsin
Felony for limited set of stalking crimes, or A misdemeanor; 2nd misdemeanor stalking is E felony
Antiharassment protective order available; violation of order is 90 days
Wyoming
Felony for limited set of stalking crimes, or misdemeanor; 2nd misdemeanor stalking is felony
Stalking protective order available; Violation of order is misdemeanor
Guam
Felony of 2nd degree for limited set of stalking crimes, or felony 3
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order is misdemeanor
Virgin Islands
Felony
Stalking violation of domestic violence protection order calls for contempt penalties
APPENDIX C
State Stalking Laws:  Harassment and Threats by Level of Offense
State
Harassment
Threats and Menacing
Telephone Threats or Harassment
Other
Alabama
Misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
Alaska
B misdemeanor
B misdemeanor
Arizona
Misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
Class 1 misdemeanor
Arkansas
Misdemeanor
D felony or
A misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
Letter threat is misdemeanor
California
Misdemeanor
Misdemeanor; violation of order has 1 year penalty
Colorado
Class 3 misdemeanor
Class 3 misdemeanor; with weapon is felony 5
Misdemeanor
Connecticut
D felony
A misdemeanor
C misdemeanor
Letter threat is C misdemeanor
Delaware
G felony or
B misdemeanor
Felony or
misdemeanor
District of Columbia
Misdemeanor
Florida
Felony 2
Misdemeanor 2
Threatening letter is felony 2
Harassing minor under age 16 is felony 3
Georgia
Felony
Misdemeanor
Hawaii
Misdemeanor
C felony
Idaho
Misdemeanor; 2nd is felony

State
Harassment
Threats and Menacing
Telephone Threats or Harassment
Other
Illinois
C felony
Class 3 or 4 felony
Letter threat is C felony
Indiana
A misdemeanor
B misdemeanor
Letter harassment is B misdemeanor
Iowa
Misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
Letter threat is misdemeanor
Kansas
Class 9 felony
Class A misdemeanor
Threat by fax is A misdemeanor
Kentucky
B misdemeanor
B misdemeanor
Letter harassment is B misdemeanor
Louisiana
Felony
Misdemeanor; 2nd is felony
Maine
Class C crime (5 year maximum)
Class C or D crime
(misdemeanor)
Class E crime (misdemeanor)
Maryland
Misdemeanor
Felony
Misdemeanor (3 year maximum)
Threatening letter is a felony
Massachusetts
Misdemeanor
Misdemeanor (intimidation)
Stalking by e-mail, facsimile etc.
Michigan
Misdemeanor
Letter harassment is  misdemeanor
Stalking by e-mail crime
Minnesota
Gross misdemeanor
Felony or misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
Mississippi
Threatening by letter is a misdemeanor

State
Harassment
Threats and Menacing
Telephone Threats or Harassment
Other
Missouri
A misdemeanor
B misdemeanor; 2nd is A misdemeanor
Misdemeanor A
Letter threat is A misdemeanor
Montana
Felony (intimidation)
Misdemeanor; 3rd is felony
Nebraska
Class 4 felony
Nevada
Misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
Threatening by letter is misdemeanor
New Hampshire
Misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
New Jersey
4th degree crime
3rd degree crime
New Mexico
Misdemeanor
Misdemeanor; 2nd is felony 4
New York
A misdemeanor
E felony or misdemeanor; 2nd is 10 year sentence maximum
Misdemeanor
Letter threat is A misdemeanor
Electronic harassment is crime
North Carolina
Class 1 misdemeanor
Misdemeanor 1
Letter threat is misdemeanor 1
North Dakota
B misdemeanor
C felony or A misdemeanor (menacing)
A misdemeanor
Ohio
Misdemeanor 1 or misdemeanor 4
Misdemeanor 1; 2nd is felony 5
Aggravated trespassing with intent to harm is misdemeanor 1
Oklahoma
Misdemeanor (30 day maximum)
Misdemeanor
Threatening letter is misdemeanor
Oregon
A or B misdemeanor
B misdemeanor
B misdemeanor
Letter threat is B misdemeanor
Pennsylvania
Summary offense
Misdemeanor 1
Misdemeanor 3

State
Harassment
Threats and Menacing
Telephone Threats or Harassment
Other
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
South Dakota
Misdemeanor 1
Tennessee
A misdemeanor
Letter threat is A misdemeanor
Texas
B misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
B misdemeanor
Letter threat is B misdemeanor
Utah
B misdemeanor
B misdemeanor
Letter threat is B misdemeanor
Vermont
Misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
Virginia
Misdemeanor 1
Letter threat is felony 6
Washington
Gross misdemeanor; 2nd is C felony
Felony or gross misdemeanor
Gross misdemeanor or C felony
West Virginia
Misdemeanor
Wisconsin
Class A misdemeanor; 2nd is E felony
D felony
B misdemeanor
Threat by e-mail or other electronic communication
Letter threat is D felony
Wyoming
Misdemeanor
Electronic communication can be part of stalking harassment
Guam
Misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
Puerto Rico
Misdemeanor
Virgin Islands
Misdemeanor
Letter threat is misdemeanor
APPENDIX D
 Summary of State Stalking and Related Laws
State
Stalking is felony-only crime
Harassment is crime
Threat  is crime
Stalking civil order available
Stalking order registry
Arrest w/o warrant for stalking
Pretrial release limits
AL
X
X
      (T)*
AK
X
      (T)
X
AZ
X
X
 X (T)
X
X
AR
X
X
 X (T L)
X
CA
X + misdemeanor
 X (T)
X
X
CO
X
X
 X (T)
X
CT
X
 X (T L)
DE
X
X
 X
DC
 X (T L)
FL
X + misdemeanor
 X (T)
X
X
GA
 X (T)
X
HI
X
 X
ID
     (T)
X
X
IL
X
 X (T L)
X
IN
 X (T L)
X
IA
X
      (T L)
X
KS
X
 X (T)
KY
 X (T L)
LA
 X (T)
ME
X
 X (T)
X
X
MD
X
X
 X (T L)
X
X
MA
X
 X (T)
MI
X + misdemeanor
      (T L)
X
X
MN
X + misdemeanor
X
 X (T)
X
MS
      (L)
MO
X + misdemeanor
X
 X (T L)
X
X
MT
X
 X (T)
X
X
X
NE
X
 X
X
NV
X + misdemeanor
      (T L)
X
X
NH
X
 X
X
X
NJ
X
 X
NM
    (T)
NY
X
 X (T L)
NC
X
 X (T L)
ND
X
 X (T L)
X
OH
X
 X (T)
X
X
OK
 X (T L)
X
X
OR
X
 X (T L)
X
X
X
PA
X
 X (T)
RI
X
SC
X
      (T)
X
 X(Order Viol)
SD
X
TN
      (T L)
TX
X
 X (T L)
X
UT
 X (T)
VT
X
 X (T)
VA
      (T L)
X
WA
X
 X (T)
X
X
X
WV
      (T)
X
WI
X
 X (T L)
X
WY
      (T)
X
X (Order Viol)
GU
X
X
 X (T)
PR
 X
VI
X
*T = telephone threat, L = letter threat

APPENDIX E
Stalking Resources on the Internet
        The Internet has rapidly become the primary information source for many individuals.  Legal resources are especially prevalent on the Internet, with all but a handful of States having a website offering legislative and court decision information.  Criminal justice agencies also have a major presence on the Internet.
        A study on domestic violence sponsored by NIJ identified several sites directly related to stalking, including locations containing government reports on stalking, fact sheets, and training materials.  Also available on the Internet are several law review articles on stalking laws, and victim-oriented materials, including advice on what victims can do to fight stalking. Finally, information is provided about groups helping stalking victims.  The following are among the Internet stalking sites identified by the study:
Website Content
Internet Addresses
DOJ First Annual Stalking Report to Congress (1996)
        http://ncjrs.org/txtfiles/stlkbook.txt
DOJ Stalking Report to Congress (Mirror site)
        http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ocpa/94Guides/DomViol/
Second Annual Stalking Report to Congress (PDF file) (1997)
        http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawgo/reports.htm
Model Antistalking Code
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ocpa/94Guides/DomViol/appendb.htm
Bureau of Justice Assistance Seminar on Stalking Law Implementation
        http://aspensys.aspensys.com:209/R0-185754-range/ncjrs/data/anticode.txt
National Victim Center  stalking law fact sheet
        http://www.nvc.org/ddir/info71.htm
Another Fact Sheet
        http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs14-stk.html
Iowa Attorney General fact sheet on stalking
        http://www.state.ia.us/government/ag/stalker.htm
Stalking FAQ
        http://www.madcapps.com/Writings/faqabout.htm
National Victim Assistance Academy training manual
        http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/assist/nvaa/ch21-2st.htm
National Victim Center help guide for stalking victims
        http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/help/stalk/info44.htm
National Victim Center safety tips
        http://www.nvc.org/gdir/svsafety.htm
State stalking laws
        http://www.nvc.org/hdir/statestk.htm
Law review article on efficacy of California stalking law
        http://www.uchastings.edu/womenslj/jordan.html
Allen law review article on United Kingdom stalking laws
        http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/1996/issue4/allen4.html
Cyberstalking
        http://www.cyberangels.org/stalking/
Survivors of Stalking
        http://www.soshelp.org/
Portland (OR) stalking information
        http://www.multnomah.lib.or.us/dcfs/dv/dvman/stalking.html
Online Harassment Resources
        http://www.io.com/~barton/harassment.html
Personal Protection Orders (PPOs) forms for Michigan available online
http://www.mivictims.org/ppo/index.html
Michigan's antistalking law
http://www.ingham.org/bc/wom/stalking.htm
Stalking Victims Sanctuary
        http://www.ccon.com/stalkvictim/
APPENDIX F
Selected Bibliography
        Alldridge, P.  "Threat Offenses A Case for Reform."  Criminal Law Review 3(1994): 176-186.
                Allen, M.J. "Look Who'stalking:  Seeking a Solution to the Problem of Stalking."  Web Journal of Current Legal Issues 4 (1996).  URL:   http://www.newcastle.ac.uk/~nlawwww/1996/issue4/allen4.html.
                American Prosecutors Research Institute.  Mission Possible:  Stopping Stalkers [a comprehensive training curriculum].  (Alexandria, VA: Author, 1997).
                American Prosecutors Research Institute.  Stalking:  Prosecutors Convict and Restrict.  (Alexandria, VA: Author, 1997).
                Anderson, S.C.  "Anti-Stalking Laws:  Will They Curb the Erotomaniac's Obsessive Pursuit?"  Law and Psychiatry Review 17 (1993): 171-185.
                "Anti-Stalker Device."  Law and Order 40(10) (October 1992): 4+.
                Attinello, K.L.  "Anti-Stalking Legislation:  A Comparison of Traditional Remedies Available for Victims of Harassment Versus California Penal Code Section 646.9 (California Anti-Stalking Law)."  Pacific Law Journal 24(4) (July 1993): 1945-1980.
                Bachman, A., and A.L. Coker.  "Police Involvement in Domestic Violence:  The Interactive Effects of Victim Injury, Offender History of Violence and Race."  Violence and Victims 10(2) (1995): 91-106.
                Bachman, R., and L. Saltzman.  "Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey."  In Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report.  (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 1995).
                Bane, V.  "By Love Obsessed."  People Weekly 48(2) (July 14, 1997): 65+.
                Baty, J.A.  "Alabama's Stalking Statutes: Coming Out of the Shadows."  Alabama Law Review  48 (Fall 1996): 229.
                Beck, A.  "Murderous Obsession."  Newsweek July 13, 1992: 60.
                Benson, K.  "Stalking Stopped in its Tracks."  Police 18(9) (September 1994): 36 39,75.
                Bernstein, S.E.  "Living Under the Siege: Do Stalking Laws Protect Domestic Violence Victims?"  Cardoza Law Review 15 (1993): 525 567.
                Birmingham, L.N.  "Closing the Loophole:  Vermont's Legislative Response to Stalking."  Vermont Law Review 18(2) (Winter 1994): 477-527.
                Bjerregaard, B.  "Stalking and the First Amendment: A Constitutional Analysis of State Stalking Laws."  Criminal Law Bulletin 32(4) (July August 1996): 307-341.
                Blanchard, K.  "When a Lover Turns Evil."  Mademoiselle 100(11) (November 1994): 146+.
                Bradburn, W.E.  "Stalking Statutes: An Ineffective Legislative Remedy for Rectifying Perceived Problems with Today's Injunction System."  Ohio Northern University Law Review 19 (1992): 271.
                Brewster, M.  "An Exploration of the Experiences and Needs of Former Intimate Stalking Victims."  West Chester University, forthcoming 1998.
                Buckley, M.  "Stalking Laws Problem or Solution?"  Wisconsin Women's Law Journal 9(23) (1994): 23-66.
                Bumiller, E.  "The Sister Who Made Amends: Her Brother Killed a Woman. Now She's Fighting for Crime Victims."  The Washington Post (May 9, 1995):  C-1.
                Burgess, A.W., T. Baker, and R. Halloran.  "Stalking Behaviors within Domestic Violence."  Journal of Family Violence 12(4) (December 1997): 389.
                Burt, M.  "Violence Against Women Act of 1994: Evaluation of the STOP Block Grants to Combat Violence Against Women."  Urban Institute, Grant no. 95-WT-NX-0005 (1996).
        Burt, M., et al., "1998 Annual Report: Evaluation of the STOP Formula Grants Under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994."  Urban Institute, Grant No. 95-WT-NX-0005 (1998).
                Buzawa, E.S., and C.G. Buzawa.  Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response. 2d ed.  (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996).
                Carmody, C.  "Deadly Mistakes."  ABA Journal 80 (September 1994): 68 71.
                Carmody, C.  "Stalking by Computer."  ABA Journal 80(9) (September 1994): 70+.
                "Cellular Phones Handed Out to Domestic Violence Victims."  Community Police Digest 1(16) (August 24, 1995): 7.
                Clede, B.  "Monitoring Stalkers:  Keeping Track Inexpensively."  Law and Order 41(11) (September 1993): 78-79.
                Coleman, F.L.  "Stalking Behavior and the Cycle of Domestic Violence."  Journal of Interpersonal Violence 12(3) (1997): 420-32.
                Copelan, D.  "Is Georgia's Stalking Law Unconstitutionally Vague?"  Mercer Law Review 45(2) (Winter 1994): 853-863.
                Cordes, R.  "A Deputy's Hunch Stops A Wife Stalker."  Sheriff 45(3) (May-June 1993): 29, 32.
                Cordes, R.  "Watching Over the Watched:  Greater Protection Sought for Stalking Victims."  Trial 29(12) (October 1993): 12-13.
                Corrado, M.L.  "Criminal Law: Punishment and the Wild Beast of Prey: The Problem of Preventive Detention."  Northwestern School of Law Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 86 (Spring 1996): 778.
                Craven, D.  "Female Victims of Violent Crime." In Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Findings.  (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 1996).
                Criminal Defense Newsletter 19(4) (January 1996).
                Crisis Intervention and Time-Limited Cognitive Treatment.  (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995).
                Crowley, R.R.  "Crimes Against the Person: Provide Two Additional Means by which Aggravated Stalking Statute May Be Violated."  Georgia State University Law Review 12 (October 1995):  105.
                Current or Recently Completed Research in Domestic Violence and Child Abuse.  (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1994).
                D'Antonio, M.  "The Strangest Stalking Case Ever."  Redbook 187(2) (June 1996): 108+.
                Darny, S.  "'He's Stalking Me!'   One Woman's Story."  The Washingtonian 30(6) (March 1995): 72.
                David, J.W.  "Is Pennsylvania's Stalking Law Constitutional?"  University of Pittsburgh Law Review 56 (1994): 205.
                Davis, M.F., and S.J. Kraham.  "Protecting Women's Welfare in the Face of Violence."  Fordham Urban Journal 22 (Summer 1995):1 141.
                Delaware Statistical Analysis Center.  Domestic Violence in Delaware 1994; An Analysis of Victim to Offender Relationships with Special Focus on Stalking.  (Dover, DE:  Author, 1996).
                DeWitt, N., C.B. Ortner, and M. Yocca.   "Representing Celebrity Stalking Victims."  Entertainment Law and Finance 12 (July 1996): 1.
                Diacovo, N.  "California's Anti-Stalking Statute: Deterrent or False Sense of Security."  Southwestern University Law Review 24 (1995): 389.
                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 36(1) (January 1991): 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.
                Dvorchak, R.J.  Someone Is Stalking Me; A True Story of Marriage, Murder and Deadly Delusions in the Michigan . . .  (New York: Dell, 1993).
                Dworaczyk, Kellie.  Rewriting the Stalking Law.  (Austin, TX: House Research Organization, Texas House of Representatives, 1997).
                "Electronic Warning Alerts Victim:  Leads to Probationer's Arrest."  Alternatives to Incarceration 2(3) (May-June 1996): 8+.
                Engley, H.L.  "Psychiatrist's Book Details Life Under a Stalker's Obsession."  The Detroit News July 31, 1997.  URL: http://detnews.com/1997/accent/9707/31/07310061.htm.
                English, K., S. Pullen, and L. Jones.  "Managing Adult Sex Offenders in the Community A Containment Approach."  Research in Brief.  (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1997).
                Faulkner, R.P.  "And Where You Go I'll Follow:  The Constitutionality of Antistalking Laws and Proposed Model Legislation."  Harvard Journal on Legislation 31(1) (Winter 1994): 1-62.
                Fein, R.A., B. Vossekuil, and G. Holden.  "Threat Assessment: An Approach to Prevent Targeted Violence."  Research in Brief.  (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, September 1995).
                Flynn, C.P.  "New Jersey Antistalking Law: Putting an End to a 'Fatal Attraction.'"  Seton Hall Legislative Journal 18 (1993): 297.
                Flowers, R.B.   The Victimization and Exploitation of Women and Children:  A Study of Physical, Mental, and Sexual Maltreatment in the United States.  (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1994).
                Fremouw, W.J., D.Westrup, and J. Pennypacker.  "Stalking on Campus:  The Prevalence and Strategies for Coping with Stalking."  Journal of Forensic Sciences 42(4) (July 1997): 666.
                Fritz, J.P.  "A Proposal for Mental Health Provisions in State Anti-Stalking Laws."  The Journal of Psychiatry and Law 23 (Summer 1995): 295.
                Gargan, J.  "Stop Stalkers Before They Strike."  Security Management 38(2) (February 1994): 31-32+.
                Gerberth, V.J.  "Stalkers."  Law and Order 40(10) (October 1992): 138-143.
                Gibbons, S.  "Unreasonable Behavior." Police Review 14(5362): 16-19.
                Gill, M.S.  "The Phone Stalkers."  Ladies Home Journal 112(9) (September 1995): 82+.
                Gilligan, M.J.  "Stalking the Stalker:  Developing New Laws to Thwart Those Who Terrorize Others."  Georgia Law Review 27(1) (Fall 1992): 285-342.
                Goldberg, D.  "Victim Can't Lift Court's Stalking Ban; Appeal Panel Cites Novel Behavioral Concept in Decision; 'Learned Helplessness.'"  The Los Angeles Daily Journal (January 24, 1997): 1.
                Goom, S.  "Whether Committed by Words Alone Letters Inducing Fear of Violence Whether Apprehension of 'Immediate' Violence."  Criminal Law Review (August 1997): 576-8.
                Guy, R.A., Jr.  "Nature and Constitutionality of Stalking Laws."  Vanderbilt Law Review 46(4) (May 1993): 991-1029.
                Haggard, T.R.  "The South Carolina Anti-Stalking Statute:  A Study in Bad Drafting."  South Carolina Lawyer 5(5) (March 1997): 13.
                Hankins, J.L.  "Criminal Anti-stalking Laws: Oklahoma Hops on the Legislative Bandwagon."  Oklahoma Law Review 46 (Spring 1993): 109.
                Harmon, B.K.  "Illinois' Newly Amended Stalking Law: Are All the Problems Solved?"  Southern Illinois University Law Journal  10 (1994): 165.
                Harmon, R.B., R. Rosner, and H. Owens.  "Obsessional Harassment and Erotomania in a Criminal Court Population."  Journal of Forensic Sciences 40(2) (March 1995): 188 196.
                Hays, J.R., J.S.C. Romans, and M.K. Ritchhart.  "Reducing Stalking Behaviors for College and University Counseling Services."  Journal of College Student Psychotherapy.  10(1) (1995): 57.
                Hendricks, J.E., and L. Spillane.  "Stalking: What Can We do to Forestall Tragedy?"  The Police Chief 60(12) (October 1992): 4+.
                Hoffman, A.  Love Kills: The Stalking of Diane Newton King.  (New York: Avon Books, 1994).
                Holmes, R.M.  "Stalking in America: Types and Methods of Criminal Stalkers."  Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 9(4) (December 1993): 17 327.
                Hueter, J.A.  "Lifesaving Legislation:  But Will the Washington Stalking Law Survive Constitutional Scrutiny?"  Washington Law Review 72(1) (January 1997): 213-240.
                Hunzeker, D.  "Stalking Laws."  State Legislative Report 17(19) (October 1992).
                Infante, C.  "The New Stalking Law."  Arkansas Lawyer 28 (Fall 1994): 30.
                "Investigations."  Law and Order 42(5) (May 1, 1994): 89.
                Jordan, T.  "The Efficacy of the California Stalking Law:  Surveying Its Evolution, Extracting Insights from Domestic Violence Cases."  Hastings Women's Law Journal 6(2) (Summer 1995): 363-383.
                Kace, J.H.  "Aftermath of Seeking Domestic Violence Protective Orders:  The Victim's Perspective."  Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 110(3) (September 1994): 204-219.
                Kamir, O.  Stalking:  Culture, History, and Law.  J.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, 1995.
                Kappeler, V.E., B. Blumberg, and G.W. Potter.  Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice, 2nd edition.  (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1996).
                Karbarz, S.L.  "The First Amendment Implications of Antistalking Statutes."  Journal of Legislation 21 (1995): 333.
                Keilitz, S., P.L. Hannaford, and H.S. Efkeman.  Civil Protection Orders: The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domestic Violence.  (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice under Grant no. 93-IJ-CX-0035).
                Kienlen, K.K., D.L. Birmingham, and M.J. Reid.  "A Comparative Study of Psychotic and Nonpsychotic Stalking."  Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 25(3) (1997): 317.
                Killenbeck, M.R.  "And Then They Did . . .? Abusing Equity in the Name of Justice." Arkansas Law Review 44 (Spring 1991): 235.
                Kirwan, W.E.  "Mistakes in Homicide Investigation."  Medical Trial Quarterly 12(4) (June 1966): 23-43.
                Kolarik, G.  Prisoners of Fear  (New York: Avon Books, 1995).
                Kolb, T.V.  "North Dakota's Stalking Law: Criminalizing the Crime Before the Crime."  North Dakota Law Review 70 (1994): 159.
                Kowalski, S.K.  "Michigan Stalking Law: Is it Constitutional?"  Michigan Bar Journal 73 (1994): 926.
                Krueger, K.  "Panel Presentation on Stalking."  University of Toledo Law Review 25 (Winter, 1995): 903.
                Kurt, J.L.  "Stalking as a Variant of Domestic Violence." Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 23(2) (1995): 219 230.
                Landau, E.  Stalking.  (New York: Franklin Watts, 1996).
                Lane, J.  "Threat Management Fills Void in Police Services."  The Police Chief 59(8) (August 1992): 27.
                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).
                Lardner, Jr., G.  The Stalking of Kristin: A Father Investigates the Murder of His Daughter.  (New York: Onyx, 1995).
                Lawson-Cruttenden, T., and B. Hussain.  "Psychological Assault and Harassment."  New Law Journal 146(6759) (1996): 1326-27.
                Leong, G.B.  "De Clerambault Syndrome (Erotomania) in the Criminal Justice System:  Another Look at This Recurring Problem."  Journal of Forensic Sciences 39(2) (March 1994): 378-385.
                Lewin, T.  "New Laws Address Old Problem: The Terror of Stalker's Threats."  The New York Times (February 8, 1993): A1.
                Lindsey, M.  Terror of Batterer Stalking: A Guideline for Intervention.  (Littleton, CO: Gylantic Publishing Company, 1993).
                Lingg, R.A.  "Stopping Stalkers:  A Critical Examination of Anti-Stalking Statutes."  St. John's Law Review 67(2) (Spring 1993): 347-381.
                Loving, B.  "DMV Secrecy: Stalking and Suppression of Speech Rights."  The Catholic University of America Commlaw Conspectus 4 (Summer 1996): 203.
                Markman, R.M.D., and R. Labrecque.  Obsessed:  The Stalking of Theresa Saldana.  (New York: William Morrow, 1994).
                Marks, C.A.  "The Kansas Stalking Law:  A 'Credible Threat' to Victims; A Critique of the Kansas Stalking Law and Proposed Legislation."  Washburn Law Journal 36(3) (Summer 1997): 468-498.
                Maschke, K.J., editor.   The Legal Response to Violence Against Women.  (New York: Garland, 1997).
                McAnaney, K., L.A. Curliss, and C.E. Abeyta-Price.  "From Imprudence to Crime:  Anti-Stalking Laws."  Notre Dame Law Review 68(4) (April 1993): 819-909.
                McCann, J.T.  "Obsessive Attachment and the Victimization of Children: Can Antistalking Legislation Provide Protection?"  Law and Psychology Review 19 (Spring 1995): 93.
                McCreedy, K.R., and B.G. Dennis.  "Sex-Related Offenders and Fear of Crime on Campus."  Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 12(1) (1996): 68-81.
                Meloy, J.R.  "Demographic and Clinical Comparison of Obsessional Followers and Offenders with Mental Disorders."  American Journal of Psychiatry 152(2) (February 1995): 258+.
                Meloy, J.R.  "Stalking (Obsessional Following): A Review of Some Preliminary Studies."  Aggression and Violent Behavior 1(2) (Summer 1996): 147 162.
                Meloy, J.R.  "The Clinical Risk Management of Stalking:  'Someone Is Watching Over Me'"  American Journal of Psychotherapy 51(2) (1997): 174-184.
        Meloy, J.R. editor.  The Psychology of Stalking: Clinical and Forensic Perspectives.  (San              Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
                Michigan Legislature.  Domestic Violence, Stalking, Date Rape:  An Information Guide.  (Lansing, MI: The Legislature, 1995).
                Milano, S.M.  Defending Our Lives: Protecting Yourself from Domestic Violence and Stalking.  (Chicago: Noble, 1995).
                Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault Training Manual.  (Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, n.d.).
                Morin, K.S.  "The Phenomenon of Stalking: Do Existing State Statutes Provide Adequate Protection?"  San Diego Justice Journal 1(1) (Winter 1993): 123.
                Mullen, P.E., and M. Pathe.  "Stalking and the Pathologies of Love."  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 28(3) (September 1994): 469.
                National Criminal Justice Association.  Project to Develop a Model Anti-stalking Code for States.  (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1993).
                National Criminal Justice Association.  "Three Courts Uphold Stalking Laws: Two States Clarify Statutory Language."  NCJA Justice Bulletin 14(9)1-2 (September 1994): 12-14.
                National Criminal Justice Association.  Regional Seminar Series on Implementing Antistalking Codes.  (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, June 1996).
                Nehilla, T.J.  "Applying Stalking Statutes to Groups A First Amendment Freedom of Speech Analysis."  Dickinson Law Review 99 (Summer, 1995): 1071.
                O'Malley, S.  "Nowhere to Hide:  Why the New Stalking Laws Still Don't Protect Women."  Redbook 188(1) (November 1996): 120+.
                O'Malley, S., and S.A. Newman.  "Horror in Brooklyn Heights."  New York 27(23) (June 6, 1994): 24+.
                O'Reilly, G.W.  "Illinois' Stalking Statute:  Taking Unsteady Aim at Preventing Attacks."  John Marshall Law Review 26(4) (Summer 1993): 821-864.
                Orion, D.R.  I Know You Really Love Me:  A Psychiatrist's Journal of Erotomania, Stalking, and Obsessive Love.  (Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan General Reference, 1997).
                Orion, D.R.  "Dear Doctor, I know you love me . . ."  Medical Economics 72(5) (March 1995): 143+.
                Pappas, D.M.  "When a Stalker's Hot Pursuit Turns Coldly Calculated Chase in Minnesota:  How Specific Need Expressions of Intent Be or Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words?  Hamline Law Review 20(2) (Winter 1996): 371-393.
                Patton, E.A.  "Stalking Laws: In Pursuit of a Remedy."  Rutgers Law Journal 25(2) (Winter 1994): 465 515.
                Perez, C.  "Stalking:  When Does Obsession Become a Crime?"  American Journal of Criminal Law 20(2) (Winter 1993): 263-280.
                Phipps, M.P.  "North Carolina's New Anti-Stalking Law:  Constitutionally Sound, But Is It Really a Deterrent?"  North Carolina Law Review 71(6) (September 1993): 1933-1953.
                Pilon, M.  "Anti-Stalking" Laws: The United States and Canadian Experience.  (Ottawa: Library of Parliament, Research Branch, 1993).
                Poling, B.E.  "Stalking: Is the Law Hiding in the Shadows of Constitutionality?"  Capitol University Law Review  23(1994): 279.
                Proctor, M. "Stalking:  A Behavioral Overview With Case Management Strategies."  Journal of California Law Enforcement 29(3) (September 1995): 63-69.
                "Protecting the Victims."  The Los Angeles Daily Journal  (January 24, 1996): 6.  (from the Klamath Falls, Oregon Herald and News) (Editorial).
                Puente, M.  "Legislators Tackling the Terror of Stalking But Some Experts Say Measures Are Vague."  USA Today (July 21, 1992): A9.
                Riggs, S. M. Romano, J. Starkweather, and B. Waaler.  Domestic Stalking:  Prevalence, Protection and Policies.  (Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary, Center for Public Policy Research, December 1997).
                Roberts, A.R., and S.F. Dziegielewski.  "Assessment Typology and Intervention With the Survivors of Stalking.  Aggression and Violent Behavior 1(4) (Winter 1996): 359-368.
                Romans, J.S.C., J.R. Hays, and T.K. White.  "Stalking and Related Behaviors Experienced by Counseling Center Staff Members from Current or Former Clients."  Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 27(6) (December 1996): 595.
                Roscha, N.  "The Anti-Stalking Law of Ohio:  Will  It Pass Constitutional Muster?"  University of Dayton Law Review 19(2) (Winter 1994): 749-781.
                Rosman, J.B.  "Survey of Florida Law: Domestic Violence: Recent Amendments to the Florida Statutes."  Nova Law Review 20 (1995): 117.
                Ross, E.S.  "E-Mail Stalking:  Is Adequate Legal Protection Available?"  The John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law 13(3) (Spring 1995): 405.
                Safran, C.  "A Stranger Was Stalking Our Little Girl."  Good Housekeeping 215(5) (November 1992): 185.
                Salame, L.  "A National Survey of Stalking Laws:  A Legislative Trend Comes to the Aid of Domestic Violence Victims and Others."  Suffolk University Law Review 27(67) (Spring 1993): 67-111.
                Sanford, B.S.  "Stalking Is Now Illegal:  Will a Paper Law Make a Difference?"  Thomas M. Cooley Law Review 10(2) (May 1993): 409-442.
                Schaum, M., and K. Parrish.  Stalked!:  Breaking the Silence on the Crime of Stalking in America.  (New York: Pocket Books, 1995).
                Scocas, E., et al.  Domestic Violence in Delaware, 1994: An Analysis of Victim to Offender Relationships.  (Dover, DE: Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, 1996).
                Seigel, J.  "Look Who's Stalking: Cyndy Garvey Is Smart, Attractive and Talented.  She Just Has a Little Trouble Letting Go . . . ."  Los Angeles Magazine 41(5) (May 1996): 68+.
                Sherman, W.  "Stalking:  The Nightmare That Never Ends."  Cosmopolitan 216(4) (April 1994): 198.
                Simakis, A.  "Why the Stalking Laws Aren't Working."  Glamour 94(5) (May 1996): 244-247+.
                Skalias, L., and B. Davis.  Stalked:  A True Story.  (Arlington, TX: Summit, 1994).
                Sloan, C.O.  "Standing Up to Stalkers:  South Carolina's Antistalking Law Is a Good First Step."  South Carolina Law Review 45(2) (Winter 1994): 383-427.
                Smolove, J. "Voice of the Torturer:  An Abducted Girl's Mother Helps Track a Man Who May Have Harassed Her by Phone for Two Decades."  Time 146(25) (December 18, 1995): 51.
                Sneirson, A.M.  "No Place to Hide: Why State and Federal Enforcement of Stalking Laws May be the Best Way to Protect Abortion Providers."  Washington University Law Quarterly 73 (1995): 635.
                Sohn, E.F.  "Antistalking Statutes: Do They Actually Protect Victims?"  Criminal Law Bulletin 30(3) (May June 1994): 203 241.
                "Stalking:  It's More Than Just a TV Star's Gag Material."  Security Management Bulletin 2416 (August 25, 1995): 1-3.
                Stasi, L.  "Someone Is Stalking Me."  Ladies Home Journal 114(1) (January 1997): 323+.
                State Justice Institute.  Validity and Use of Evidence Concerning Battering and Its Effects in Criminal Trials:  Report Responding to Section 40507 of the Violence Against Women Act.  (Alexandria, VA: Author, 1996).
                Stearns, H.M.  "Stalking Stuffers: A Revolutionary Law to Keep Predators Behind Bars."  Santa Clara Law Review 35 (1995): 1027.
                Thomas, K.R.  Anti-Stalking Statutes: Background and Constitutional Analysis.  (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 1992).
                Thomas, K.R.  "How to Stop the Stalker: State Antistalking Laws." Criminal Law Bulletin 29(2) (March-April 1993): 124 136.
                Thompson, T.  "When Eager Lover Becomes the Relentless Stalker."  The Washington Post (April 17, 1994): A1.
                Tjaden, P.  "Stalking in America: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey."  (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, April 1998, under Grant. No. 93-IJ-CX-0012).
                Tolhurst, K.W.  "A Search for Solutions:  Evaluating the Latest Anti-Stalking Developments and the National Institute of Justice Model Stalking Code."  William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law 1(1) (Fall 1994): 269.
                Toobin, J.  "Annals of Law:  Stalking in L.A."  The New Yorker 73(2) (February 1997): 72.
                Truppa, M.  "Suburban Prosecutors Call Stalking Law Too Strict."  Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (February 12, 1993): 3.
                Tucker, J.T.  "Stalking the Problems with Stalking Laws: The Effectiveness of Florida Statutes Section 784.048."  Florida Law Review 45(4) (September 1993): 609 707.
                Turl, P.  "Stalking Is a Public Problem."  The New Law Journal 144(6647) (May 1994): 632.
                Tuston, A., and J.C. Smith.  "Case and Comment:  Inflicting Harm."  Criminal Law Review 1996(5) (May 1996): 331-334+.
                Tuten, L., and E. Sherman.  "I Was Stalked."  McCall's 122(1) (August 1995): 55+.
                U.S. Congress.  "Introduction and Consultation of S. 15."  Report on the Violence Against Women Act of 1991.  102nd Cong., 1st Sess., October 29, 1991.
                U.S. Congress.  Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  Antistalking Legislation:  Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  102nd  Cong., 2nd Sess., September 19, 1992.  Report 102-1073.
                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 Cong., 2nd Sess. Report 102-1073.
                U.S. Congress.  Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  Antistalking Proposals: Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary on Combating Stalking and Family Violence.  103rd Cong., 1st Sess., March 17, 1993.  Report 103-206.
                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.  House Committee on the Judiciary.  Report on the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996.  104th Cong., 2nd Sess.,  May 6, 1996.  Report 104-557.
                U.S. Congress.  Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  Combating Violence Against Women: Hearing May 16, 1996 on S. 1729, a Bill to Amend Title 18, United States Code, with Respect to Stalking.  104th Cong., 2nd Sess.  Report 104-842.
                Varn, R.J., and C. McNeal.  "Point/Counterpoint.  Are Anti-Stalking Laws Fatally Flawed?"  State Government News 36(8) (August 1993): 9.
                Walker, J.M.  "Antistalking Legislation: Does It Protect the Victim Without Violating the Rights of the Accused?"  Denver University Law Review 71(1) (1993): 273.
                Wallace, H.  "Stalkers, The Constitution, and Victims' Remedies."  Criminal Justice 10(1) (Spring 1995): 16-19+.
                Wallace, H.  Family Violence:  Legal, Medical, and Social Perspectives.  (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1996).
                Wallace, H., and K. Kelty.  "Stalking and Restraining Orders: A Legal and Psychological Perspective."  Journal of Crime and Justice 18(2) (1995): 99 111.
                Wallace, J.H., and J. Silverman.  "Stalking and Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome."  Police Journal 69(3) (1996): 203-206.
                Wallis, M.  "Outlawing Stalkers."  Policing Today (UK) 2(4) (1996): 25-29.
                Walsh, K.L.  "Comment: Safe and Sound at Last?  Federalized Anti-Stalking Legislation in the United States and Canada."  Dickinson Journal of International Law 14 (Winter, 1996): 373.
                Ward, C.  "Minnesota's Anti-Stalking Statute:  A Durable Tool to Protect Victims from Terroristic Behavior."  Law and Inequality:  A Journal of Theory and Practice 12(2) (June 1994): 613-647.
                Waugh, D.  "Stalking."  Canadian Medical Association Journal 154(7) (April 1996): 1088.
                Way, C.R.  "The Criminalization of Stalking:  An Exercise in Media Manipulation and Political Opportunism."  McGill Law Journal 39(2) (June 1994): 379.
                Welch, J.M.  "Stalking and Anti-Stalking Legislation:  A Guide to the Literature of a New legal Concept."  RSR: Reference Services Review 213(3) (1995): 53.
                Wells, C.  "Stalking:  The Criminal Law Response."  Criminal Law Review (1997) (July 1997): 463-470.
                Wells, K.  "California's Anti-Stalking Law a First."  Law Enforcement Quarterly (August-October 1996): 1-12.
                Wells, K.  "Stalker Interviews Are Crucial."  Law Enforcement Quarterly (November 1996-January 1997): 9-12, 31.
                Whitelaw, K.  "Fear and Dread in Cyberspace."  U.S. News & World Report 121(18) (November 4, 1996): 50.
                Wickens, J.C.  "Michigan's New Anti-Stalking Laws:  Good Intentions Gone Awry."  Detroit College of Law Review 1994(1) (Spring 1994): 157-209.
                Williams, W.L., J. Lane and M.A. Zona.  "Stalking, Successful Intervention Strategies."  The Police Chief 62(2) (February 1996): 24-26.
                Wills, C.  "Stalking:  The Criminal Law Response."  Criminal Law Review 1997 (July): 463-470.
                Wisconsin Department of Justice.  Report of 1996 Arrests for Stalking/Harassment in Wisconsin.  (Madison, WI: Author, 1996).
                Wolffe, B.  "Stalking Workplace Violence: Threats to Employees Require Prompt and Reasonable Responses by Management."  Legal Times (May 29, 1995): 32.
                Wright, J.A., A.G. Burgess, A.W. Burgess, and A.T. Laszlo.  "A Typology of Interpersonal Stalking."  Journal of Interpersonal Violence 11(4) (December 1996): 487-502.
                Wright, J.A., A.G. Gurgess, and J.E. Douglas.  "Investigating Stalking Crimes."  Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health 33(9) (September 1995): 38.
                Wright, J.S., et al.  "Typology of Interpersonal Stalking."  Journal of Interpersonal Violence 11(4) (December 1996): 487-502.
                Zona, M.A., K.K. Sharma, and J. Lane.  "Comparative Study of Erotomanic and Obsessional Subjects in a Forensic Sample."  Journal of Forensic Sciences 38(4) (April 1993): 894 903.
APPENDIX G
List of Contacts
For Sentencing and Supervision of Stalkers
CALIFORNIA
San Diego County District Attorney's Office
Contact:        Mr. Wayne Maxey
                D.A. Investigator
                Stalking Unit
                Special Operations Division
                San Diego County District Attorney's Office
                330 W. Broadway, Suite 1340
                San Diego, CA  92101
                Tel.:  (619) 515-8900
                Fax:  (619) 685-6689
COLORADO
AMEND
Contact:        Mr. Robert C. Gallup
                Executive Director
                AMEND
                789 Sherman Street, Suite 580
                Denver, CO  80203
                Tel.:  (303) 832-6363
                Fax:  (303) 832-6364
Colorado Springs Police Department
Contact:        Det. Howard  E. Black
                Domestic Violence Unit
                Colorado Springs Police Department
                705 South Nevada Avenue
                Colorado Springs, CO  80903
                Tel.: (719) 444-7765
                Fax: (719) 444-7815
Denver District Attorney's Office
Contact:        Mr. Steven R. Siegel
                Director of Program Development
                Denver District Attorney's Office
                303 West Colfax, Suite 1300
                Denver, CO  80204
                Tel.: (303) 640-5195
                Fax:  (303) 640-3180
DELAWARE
Family Court of the State of Delaware
Contact:  Mr. Michael Arrington
         Director of Special Court Services
         Family Court of the State of Delaware
         Family Court Administrative Office
         First Federal Plaza
         704 King Street
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Tel.:  (302) 577-2964
         Fax:  (302) 577-3092
ILLINOIS
Cook County State's Attorney's Office
Contacts:       Ms. Pamela A. Paziotopolous
                        Supervisor
                        Domestic Violence Division
                        Cook County State's Attorney's Office
                        1340 Michigan Avenue, Room 400
                        Chicago, IL  60605
                        Tel.:  (312) 341-2866
                        Fax:  (312)  341-2806
                Ms. Maura A. Slattery
                Assistant State's Attorney
                Domestic Violence Unit
                Cook County State's Attorney's Office
                1340 Michigan Avenue, Room 400
                Chicago, IL  60605
                Tel.:  (312) 341-2831
                Fax:  (312) 341-2806
IOWA
Iowa Attorney General's Office
Contact:        Ms. Roxann M. Ryan
                Assistant Attorney General
                Iowa Attorney General's Office
                Hoover Building
                Des Moines, IA  50318
                Tel.:  (515) 281-5473
                Fax:  (515) 281-4209
MASSACHUSETTS
Quincy District Court
Contact:        Mr. Andrew R. Klein
                Chief Probation Officer
                Quincy District Court
                Quincy, MA  02169
                Tel.:  (617) 325-4477
                No Fax
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Dover Police Department
Contact:        Mr. George E. Wattendorf
                City Prosecutor
                Prosecution
                City of Dover Police Department
                46 Locust Street
                Dover, NH  03820
                Tel.:  (603) 743-6140
                Fax:  (603) 743-6063
NEW YORK
Ithaca City Court
Contact:        Judge John Rowley
                Ithaca City Court
                118 E. Clinton Street
                Ithaca, NY  14850
                Tel.:  (607) 273-2263
                Fax:  (607) 277-3702
Westchester County Probation Department
Contacts:       Mr. Robert Chace
                Assistant Commissioner for Family Court Services
                Westchester County Probation Department
                112 East Post Road, 3rd floor
                White Plains, NY 10601
                Tel.:  (914) 285-3528
                Fax:  (914) 285-3507
                Ms. Nancy M. Lick
                Chief of Research, Planning and Staff Development
                Westchester County Probation Department
                112 East Post Road, 3rd floor
                White Plains, NY 10601
                Tel.:  (914) 285-2296
                Fax:  (914) 285-3507
Westchester County District Attorney's Office
Contact:        Ms. Maryellen Martirano
                Second Deputy District Attorney
                Westchester County District Attorney's Office
                111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard
                White Plains, NY 10601
                Tel.:  (914) 285-3000
                Fax:  (914) 285-3422
Tompkins County Domestic Violence Prevention Coordinator
Contact:        Ms. Gwen P. Wilkinson
                Tompkins County Domestic Violence Prevention Coordinator
                250 Troy Road
                Ithaca, New York  14850
                Tel.:  (607) 272-0123
                Fax:  (607) 272-3731
TENESSEE
Nashville Metropolitan Police Department
Contact:        Det. Sgt. Mark A. Wynn
                Domestic Violence Division
                Nashville Metropolitan Police Department
                60 Peabody Street
                Nashville, TN  37210
                Tel.:  (615) 880-3000
                Fax:  (615) 880-3033