The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: A Statewide Study of Stalking and Its Criminal 

Justice Response 

Author: Andrew Klein, Ph.D., Amy Salomon, Ph.D., Nick 

Huntington, M.A., Janice Dubois, M.A., Denise 

Lang 

Document No.: 228354 

Date Received: September 2009 

Award Number: 2007-WG-BX-0003 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies. 

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
A Statewide Study of Stalking and Its Criminal 

Justice Response 

Andrew Klein, Ph.D. 

Amy Salomon, Ph.D. 

Nick Huntington, M.A. 

Janice Dubois, M.A. 

Denise Lang 

Advocates for Human Potential, Inc. 

490-B Boston Post Road 

Sudbury, MA 01776 

May 2009 

This research was supported by Grant No. 2007-WG-BX-003 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not 

necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice and National Institute of 

Justice.
Table of Contents 

I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................1

A. PURPOSE, GOAL, AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................1

B. LITERATURE REVIEW: STALKING AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM................................................................3

II. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS...........................................................................................................17

A. STUDY DATA .......................................................................................................................................................18

B. STUDY SAMPLE....................................................................................................................................................19

C. STUDY MEASURES ...............................................................................................................................................23

D. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS METHODS ..................................................................................................................25

III: FINDINGS...........................................................................................................................................................27

A. ARE POLICE FULLY IDENTIFYING STALKING CASES FROM AMONG REPORTED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES? ........27

B. DO STALKING CASES DIFFER FROM GENERAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES REPORTED TO POLICE?.......................41

C. DOES IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF POLICE IDENTIFY A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE AS STALKING AS OPPOSED TO 

ANY OTHER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES, SUCH AS ASSAULT OR VIOLATION OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER?........45

IV. QUALITATIVE METHODS................................................................................................................................56

A. THEMES FROM QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS ..........................................................................................................57

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS.........................................................................................................63

A. RECOMMENDATIONS OF RESPONDENTS ...............................................................................................................67

B. STUDY LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................................70

REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................................73

APPENDIX A, SAMPLES OF POLICE AND RESEARCHER IDENTIFIED CASE POLICE NARRATIVES 

AND DV/SA REPORTS .............................................................................................................................................78

APPENDIX B, QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ...................................................................................86

APPENDIX C, STALKING CLASSIFICATION TEMPLATE................................................................................99

APPENDIX D, DISCUSSION OF STATE STALKING LAWS.............................................................................101

APPENDIX E, DV/SA FORM.................................................................................................................................103

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
I. Introduction 

Stalking between intimate partners is widespread and often associated with lethal abuse. 

Despite the enactment of anti-stalking laws in every state, relatively few stalkers are cited or 

arrested by law enforcement; even fewer are prosecuted. Consequently, it is unclear whom law 

enforcement identifies as stalkers, for what activities, and how the criminal justice system 

responds to those identified. More important, it is unknown if the under-identification and 

charging of stalking make any difference, specifically whether or not they compromise victim 

safety and/or offender accountability. 

A. Purpose, Goal, and Objectives 

Using a multi-methods approach including secondary data analyses of statewide datasets and 

qualitative methods, researchers examined the impact of identifying the crime of stalking of 

female intimates and family members across an entire state over multiple years. The research 

was designed to answer the following questions: 

1. Are police fully identifying stalking cases from among reported domestic violence cases? 

2. Do stalking cases differ from general domestic violence cases reported to police? 

3. Does it make any difference if police identify a domestic violence case as stalking as 

opposed to any other domestic violence charges, such as assault or violation of a 

protective order? 

Our hypothesis is that law enforcement’s charging of stalking matters, if for no other reason 

than that stalking constitutes a felony in our study site, Rhode Island, whereas most domestic 

violence charges filed against abusers in Rhode Island and across the country are misdemeanors 

(Klein, 2004, 12-13). As a result, the identification of stalking by police increases the likelihood 

that abusers will ultimately be held more accountable, more effectively deterring future domestic 

violence arrests. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
To address these questions, the research met the following objectives. 

Objective 1: Identify all police domestic violence incident reports filed between 2001 and 

2005, inclusive, where police identified the crime as stalking against a female victim.1 (This 

population is referred to as “police identified” stalking.) Also identify, over the same period, a 

representative sample of incidents that constitute stalking, but where police cited other domestic 

violence crimes. (This sample is referred to as “researcher identified” stalking.) 

Objective 2: Compare the police and researcher identified stalking cases, including suspect, 

victim, and incident characteristics, to determine if these characteristics were associated with 

police identification of a case as stalking. 

Objective 3: Compare both police and researcher identified stalking cases with a large 

sample of non-stalking domestic violence cases also involving female victims reported to police 

during the study period to determine how or if suspect stalkers, their victims, and the nature of 

their abuse differed from non-stalking domestic violence cases reported to police. 

Objective 4: Compare the criminal justice response for police and researcher identified 

stalkers from initial police report through any court process that followed to determine any 

differences in the criminal justice response in terms of likelihood of arrest, prosecution, 

conviction, and court disposition of reported cases. 

Objective 5: Compare differences in new arrests of police and researcher identified stalker 

suspects for domestic violence through July 16, 2008. 

Objective 6: Analyze the impact of police identification of stalking in terms of both short 

term criminal justice response, including arrest, prosecution, and sentencing of suspects, and 

longer term impact of new arrests for new domestic violence, controlling for suspect, victim, and 

incident characteristics. 

 

1

 Including current or former intimate, cohabitant, date, or family member of female victims. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Objective 7: Discuss findings with Rhode Island criminal justice officials and advocates 

involved in stalking cases to better understand and interpret quantitative findings. 

B. Literature Review: Stalking and the Criminal Justice System 

A major disconnect exists between the intent of stalking laws and their actual effect. Since 

1990, when the first stalking law was enacted in California, every state has enacted a version of a 

statute against stalking. The intent of stalking laws is to protect victims from a constellation of 

behaviors that are not necessarily criminal in and of themselves, but collectively add up to 

criminal abuse. These include, for example, repeated following of victims or repeated harassing 

contacts with victims that may not contain explicit threats to do harm, but place victims in fear or 

would place a reasonable person in fear. Notwithstanding their popularity among legislators, in 

terms of their actual effect, stalking statutes are rarely utilized. As summarized in its Third 

Annual Report to Congress, the Violence Against Women Grants Office concluded: “the 

[stalking] laws do not appear to have made a significant impact on law enforcement’s response 

to these crimes (Kang, 1998, 2).” 

Prevalence of Stalking 

Although estimates of stalking prevalence vary based on how stalking is defined and 

methodology employed to identify it, several national surveys and at least one state survey 

suggest it is widespread. The National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), conducted 

between 1995 and 1996, found that 8% of women and 2% of men reported being stalked where 

they experienced a “high level of fear” at some point in their lives, and 12% and 4%, 

respectively, where they experienced a lesser level of fear. Over one million women and 371,000 

men were stalked in the year prior to the study. Based on the US population of persons aged 18 

years and older, that came to 10 per 1,000 women and 4 per 1,000 men (Tjaden & Thoennes, 

1998). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The second Injury Control and Risk Survey, a national cross-sectional random-digit-dial 

telephone survey of adults 18 years and older conducted between July 2001 and February 2003, 

found slightly lower rates. 6.94% of women and 1.99% of men reported they had been stalked in 

their lifetime in a way they perceived to be “dangerous or threatening” (Basile et al., 2006). 

The most recent national survey, the Supplemental Victimization Survey (SVS) conducted in 

2006, found the highest number of stalking victims: 3.4 million victims over a year period, or 20 

per 1,000 women and 7.4 per 1,000 men who were 18 years and older (Baum et al., 2009). The 

SVS also found that intimates were the most likely to be stalked, with the highest rate (34 per 

1,000) for divorced or separated victims. The SVS identified cases as stalking where the victim 

reported feeling fear or experienced conduct that would cause a “reasonable person to feel fear.” 

A survey of violence victimization in New Mexico conducted in 2005 found 17,177 stalking 

victims, about 12 per 1,000 persons 18 years or over across that state (Caperona, 2007). 

Studies of specific population subgroups have documented even high rates of stalking. For 

example, studies on college campuses have found higher rates than that reported among the 

general population (Fischer, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1999). 

Criminal Justice Response to Stalking 

Whether the increase in stalking as reported in the more recent SVS is real or an artifact of 

different survey methodologies and definitions of stalking, it does not appear that the criminal 

justice response has dramatically altered since the pessimistic report made to Congress a decade 

ago. While there has been only limited research on the criminal justice response to stalking since 

that assessment (Brewster, 2003, 3.1 -3.16; Logan et al., 2006, 235-285), the few studies that 

have been conducted, coupled with data from the few states that collect stalking statistics, 

suggest that stalking is still under-assessed on the streets and in the courts. 

A small, earlier study of stalkers reported that victims overall felt the criminal justice 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
response to their victimization was “insensitive and inappropriate (Hall, 1997, 3-21).” As a result 

of her research, Hall concluded that the criminal justice system’s “lackluster response [to 

stalking] only encourages the stalker to become bolder in the future (3-21).” In her review more 

than half a decade later, Brewster (2003) continued to find the effectiveness of filing charges and 

prosecuting stalking cases “not well established (3-9).” Similarly, after surveying state stalking 

laws and practices, Miller and Nugent (2002) concluded: “Implementation of the new stalking 

laws is still limited. Most law enforcement and prosecution agencies lack policies for responding 

to stalking complaints and do not have personnel with expertise in stalking cases (6).” 

Whatever the precise stalking rate, it is clear that it is dramatically higher than the number of 

persons identified by law enforcement for stalking. Exhibit # 1 compares stalking incident 

reports filed by law enforcement over a year (across the few states that report such data) 

compared to what NVAWS and SVS estimate occurred that year, based on victim survey reports. 

Exhibit #1: NVAWS and SVS Annual Stalking Estimates and Police Stalking Filings by States

Population: 

Females and Males, 

18 and over 

NVAWS Estimate 

Stalked Annually 

SVS Estimate 

Stalked Annually 

Stalking Incident 

Reports Filed 

Ohio 

(2004)2 8,611,807 69,092 119,284 1,390 

Rhode Island 

(2005)3 830,818 5,900 11,560 40 

Florida 

(2005)4 6,840,738 94,698 185,454 1,094 

Tennessee 

(2005)5 2,348,315 32,472 63,596 854 

Kentucky6

(2000) 3,046,951 21,685 42,493 390 

 

2 Stalking in Ohio, 2004,Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services (www.ocjs.ohio.gov). 3

 Reported by Domestic Violence Training and Monitoring Unit 

(http://www.courts.state.ri.us/domesticnew/dvsa/reports_dloads.htm). 4

 Reported by Florida Department of Law Enforcement 

(www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/domestic_violence.asp). 

5

 Reported by Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Crime Statistics Unit 

(http://www.tbi.state.tn.us/Info%20Systems%20Div/TIBRS_unit/Publications/2005%20Domestic%20Violence%20

Research%20Brief%20-%20complete.pdf.) 6

 Jordan et al. (2003). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
As Miller and Nugent (2002) also concluded from an earlier review of unspecified state 

databases, “extrapolating from even the highest of these official data sources that do exist does 

not come close to the victimization survey estimates (6).”

Similarly, the New Mexico study found that while 17,177 victims were stalked in 2005, local 

and state law enforcement identified only 116 stalking victims in 2006 (Caperona, 2007). 

The rarity of police incident reports for stalking is perhaps explained by seminal research 

conducted by Tjaden and Thoennes (2001) in Colorado Springs, Colorado. They found that only 

1 suspect out of 1,785 domestic violence incidents reported by the Colorado Springs Police 

Domestic Violence Unit was charged with stalking. Not convinced this represented the true 

number of stalking cases, the researchers reviewed 1,731 of the police incident reports, all that 

included a police or victim narrative or both (i.e. Domestic Violence Summons and Complaint 

forms). They found that in 16.5% of the reports, either the victim or police officer described that 

the suspect had stalked the victim or had engaged in stalking behaviors. Nonetheless, the 

suspects were generally charged with lesser misdemeanor offenses of harassment or violation of 

a restraining order, but not stalking, a felony in Colorado (8). In other words, it appears that the 

relatively few stalking incident reports filed by police reflect police failure to indentify stalking, 

not lack of stalking reported to police. 

Stalking Arrests 

Given the low number of stalking incidents identified by police, it is not surprising that 

stalking arrests are relatively few, constituting only a tiny fraction of all domestic violence 

arrests. For example, in 2005, at the same time Ohio police filed 1,390 stalking incident reports, 

they filed more than 101,000 domestic violence reports. Similarly, at the same time Florida 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
police filed 1,094 stalking reports, they filed over 120,000 domestic violence reports.7

 As a 

result, even if arrest rates are higher for intimate stalking than other domestic violence offenses, 

the absolute number would remain tiny. 

It also appears that the arrest rate for stalking may be lower than general domestic violence 

cases in many states. Although arrest rates vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in the few states 

that provide both general domestic violence and stalking arrests rates, the former are generally 

higher than the latter. For example, in New Jersey in 2003 the arrest rate for domestic violence in 

general was reported to be 32%, but only 23% for stalking. Similarly, in Florida in 2005 it was 

53% for domestic violence in general, but only 35% for stalking. Only Rhode Island reported a 

higher arrest rate for stalking, 85%, than for domestic violence in general, 70%, although 

Tennessee that year reported the same arrest rate for domestic violence and stalking, 40%.8

A statewide Kentucky study documented a 37% arrest rate for all cases where women 

reported stalking (Jordan et al., 2003). However, the two victim surveys that looked at stalking, 

SVS and NVAWS, found victim reporting rates of only 41% to 51.9%, respectively. While 

persons other than victims may report stalking, surveys agree that the vast majority of reports are 

made by victims themselves. The SVS survey reported, for example, that 83% of reports to 

police were made by victims.

According to both NVAWS and SVS surveys, the primary police response to reported 

stalking was to write up reports, not to arrest suspects. Intimate victims in the NVAWS reported 

that the police responded by writing up reports in 67.4% of cases involving female victims and 

64.7% of male intimates victims (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Similarly, victims reported in the 

 

7 Stalking in Ohio, 2004,Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services (www.ocjs.ohio.gov) and Reported by Florida 

Department of Law Enforcement (www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/domestic_violence.asp). 8

 Arrests rates are provided through state Uniform Crime Reports, except for Rhode Island, which are provided by 

the Court Domestic Violence Training and Monitoring Unit. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
SVS survey that police responded by taking reports in 55.3% of cases (Baum et al. 2009). 

Arrests rates were 28% in cases involving female intimates in NVAWS and 7.7% for all stalking 

cases in SVS. Victims in both NVAWS and SVS report that police did “nothing” between 18.5% 

and 18.8% of the time. 

Prosecution of Stalking 

There are few studies on prosecution of stalking cases. The two national surveys reveal few 

details about prosecution response to stalking. NVAWS found a prosecution rate of 14.6% for 

intimates who stalked female victims. This increased to 25.4% of those cases reported to police 

by victims. According to the victims, only 40% of their prosecuted stalkers were convicted. 

According to victims in the later SVS survey, a fifth filed charges against their stalkers.9

 Most of 

the SVS reported court outcomes resulted in issuance of “restraining, protection, stay away 

order” (33.3%), and/or stalkers “jailed or imprisoned” (28.5%). Victims, however, may not have 

been fully aware of all prosecutions, misunderstood dispositional outcomes, and confused civil 

(protective order) and criminal court outcomes. 

One of the only detailed, specific studies conducted of stalking prosecution confirms what 

the national surveys suggest: once arrested, few stalking cases are prosecuted in court. A study of 

the 346 male stalkers arrested across Kentucky in fiscal year 1999 found that among those cases 

disposed of, the majority was dismissed (56.6%) or amended (19.4%). The majority of the 

amended charges were also subsequently dismissed. Ultimately, only 19.9% of the arrested 

stalkers were actually convicted of stalking (Jordan et al., 2003). By comparison, Garner and 

Maxwell (2008) found an average conviction rate of domestic violence arrests to be 63.8% after 

aggregating data from 26 domestic violence prosecution studies (18). 

 

9

 Whether this excludes additional cases filed by prosecutors is not reported. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
All in all, according to the SVS survey, once victims reach out to or become involved in the 

criminal justice system, they are as likely to be unhappy as happy with the results. While 45.7% 

of stalking victims reported satisfaction with the criminal justice response, 49% were not (and 

5.2% were unsure). Asked about their perceptions of the various criminal justice actors, they 

were also almost evenly split in finding them helpful or not. Reflecting lack of stalking 

prosecutions, while 85% of female intimate victims expressed opinions about police, fewer than 

15% had opinions about prosecutors or judges. 

Stalkers: Intimates and Non-Intimates 

The first stalking law, enacted in California in 1990 (Cal. Penal Code §646.9), was 

specifically targeted to protect Hollywood celebrities from delusional fans. Subsequent studies, 

however, reveal that stalking of strangers, whether a public or private figure, is less common 

than stalking of known persons. The SVS found only 9.7% of stalking was by strangers (Baum et 

al., 2009). The largest group of stalkers (39.3%) were current or former intimates or family 

members, and the remaining 36.1%, acquaintances (4). Further, the survey suggests that intimate 

victims were more likely to experience fear or actions that would cause a reasonable person to 

feel fear than non-intimate or stranger victims subject to the same conduct.10 The earlier 

NVAWS study similarly found that approximately half the stalking incidents involved current or 

former intimates (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).11 

There appears to be a simple reason why the same stalking behavior causes a different level 

of fear in intimate victims as opposed to strangers or acquaintances. Studies generally concur 

that intimate stalkers are the most dangerous of all stalkers (Schwartz-Watts & Morgan, 1998; 

 

10 For this reason, SVS found more intimate victims to be subject to stalking as opposed to harassment, while more 

stranger victims were subject to harassment than stalking. Among acquaintances, the proportions were almost equal. 

11 While the Injury Control and Risk Survey did not break down its victimization rates by relationship, it found the 

highest rate for couples who were separated, widowed, or divorced (Basile et al., 2003, 173). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Zona, Sharma, & Lane, 1993; Harmon et al., 1998; Meloy, 1998, 8). In fact, some suggest that 

former intimates are the most likely to commit violence and stranger stalkers are the least likely 

(Mullen et al., 2000). 

A study of slightly more than 1,000 stalkers drawn from police, prosecutor, and Hollywood 

security files divided stalkers into two groups: those that stalked people they knew and those that 

did not. In turn, both groups were subdivided. The first included those that stalked current or 

former intimates and those that stalked acquaintances; the second included those that stalked 

public figures and those that stalked “private” strangers. The first group (those that stalked 

people they knew) was the more likely to reoffend (90% compared to 46%) and it did so more 

quickly. Compared to all three of the non-intimate subgroups, the intimate stalkers were the most 

likely to reoffend (92% vs. 56%). They were also the most likely to be male (94% vs. 77%), have 

violent criminal histories (50% vs. 17%), and least likely to be psychotic at the time of the 

offense (11% vs 25%) (Mohandie, et al., 2006, 151). The researchers concluded that intimate 

stalkers were “by far the most malignant” of all stalkers studied (153). 

Other researchers have found intimate partner stalkers to be “startlingly” violent, with 

individual studies reporting violence frequencies from 59% to 89% (Harmon et. al., 1998; 

Palarea et al., 1999; Meloy et al., 2001, 2002; Mullen et al., 1999). The only group found to be 

more violent was “predator” stalkers, rapists who stalked their victims in order to rape them 

(Mullen et al., 2000). Intimate stalkers may also be the least deterred by criminal justice 

intervention (Mohandie et al., 2006; Rosenfeld, 2003). 

Further, research suggests a close association between stalking and femicide. McFarlane, 

Campbell, Wilt, Sachs, Ulrich, and Xu (1999) documented in their national domestic violence 

homicide review that three-quarters (76%) of intimate partner femicide victims had been stalked 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
by their intimate partners; more than half of the victims, 54%, had reported stalking to police 

prior to their murders by their stalkers. 

After reviewing the literature, Logan and Walker (2009) suggest that there are at least five 

main dimensions to intimate stalking that make the experience distinct from non-intimate 

stalking. First, intimate stalking includes “a relationship history or context.” The NVAWS, for 

example, reports that the majority of women stalked by husbands or ex-husbands report prior 

physical abuse, with almost a third reporting sexual assaults (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). As a 

result of this prior abuse, intimate stalking victims may experience more fear of their stalkers. 

Second, intimate stalking includes “a wide array and more frequent stalking tactics.” Intimate 

stalkers are more apt to know their victims’ fears and vulnerabilities, as well as how best to 

access them, their children, and other family members. For example, if victims have children 

with their stalkers, stalkers can threaten to deprive their victims of custody, threaten the 

children’s lives, or use the court or reports to child protective services to harass the victim over 

the children (Logan et al., 2006). Intimate stalkers may be more likely to employ proxy stalkers 

to assist them (Mullen et al., 2000; Logan et al., 2006) as well as engage in more frequent 

stalking (Mohandie et al., 2006; Nicastro, Cousins, & Spitzberg, 2000). 

Third, intimate stalking includes “increased risk of threats and violence.” Not only have 

studies found that intimate stalkers are more likely to threaten harm to their victims (James & 

Farnham, 2003; Mohandie et al., 2006; Palarea et al., 1999; Rosenfeld, 2003; Sheridan & Davies, 

2001), but some suggest that stalkers who make threats are more likely to carry out violence than 

those that do not make threats (Brewster, 2000; Roberts, 2005). In terms of increased risk of 

violence, a study of protective orders found that stalking was a risk factor for every kind of 

violence after the order was issued, notwithstanding other variables including minor children, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
prior abuse, and length of relationship. Women who were stalked after the orders were issued 

were 4 times more likely to experience physical abuse, 4.8 times more likely to experience 

severe physical violence, 9.3 times more likely to experience sexual assault, and 4.7 times more 

likely to be injured (Logan et al., 2008). 

Fourth, intimate stalking includes “a different timing of the beginning of stalking.” Research 

suggests that between 25% and 80% of women are stalked by their partners before separating 

from them (Brewster, 2003; Logan et al., 2006; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; Logan & Walker, 

2009; Eastel 1994). Jacobson and Gottman (1998) conclude that the prime reason victims of 

intimate stalkers (labeled “pit bulls”) were more likely than even victims of hyperviolent partners 

(labeled “cobras”) to separate from their partners was because they were incessantly stalked. 

Fifth, and perhaps most important, intimate stalking includes “greater psychological distress 

among its victims.” A study of stalking victims, almost all stalked by intimates, found that 78% 

had symptom levels that indicated at least one psychiatric disorder. The victims, in fact, had the 

same mean scale scores for somatic symptoms, anxiety, social dysfunction, and severe 

depression as psychiatric outpatient populations (Blaauw, Winkel, Arensman, Sheridan, & 

Freeve, 2002). The overlap between domestic violence in general and stalking makes it difficult 

to attribute the effects of stalking alone. However, it has been suggested that stalking may 

contribute uniquely to psychological distress (Logan & Walker, 2009, 13). If the victim was 

physically abused by the stalker in their prior relationship, anxiety symptoms have been found to 

triple over those cases where the stalking was not preceded by physical abuse (Nicastro et al., 

2000). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Stalking Victims’ Responses to Stalking 

The challenge facing the criminal justice system may be greater than assumed because the 

research suggests that, by time the time victims report stalking to police, the stalking behavior 

has been well established and it is likely that victim-initiated countermeasures have failed to stop 

the stalker. 

Victims take many actions to protect themselves from their stalkers before contacting police. 

Brewster (1998, 2001) found that most victims try to deal with stalkers on their own, first by 

trying to reason with them and then by ignoring them. The victims in the SVS survey, for 

example, reported taking a number of countermeasures, including asking friends for assistance 

(42.6%), changing their day-to-day activities (21.6%), installing caller ID/call blocking (18.1%), 

getting pepper spray (6.3%), or getting a gun (2.9%). Only 39.7% reported not changing their 

behavior. 

Stalking victims also secure civil protective or restraining order petitions, as well as, in the 

25 states that have them, stalking protective orders.12 A little more than a third of female 

intimates (36.6%) and 17% of male intimates reported obtaining a protective order in the 

NVAWS survey. A little over fifteen percent (15.6%) of all stalking victims reported having 

obtained a protective order in the SVS survey. 

Notwithstanding victim initiated countermeasures, stalking often continues, as indicated in 

the national surveys. The NVAWS survey found, for example, that more than two-thirds of the 

orders obtained by female intimate stalking victims and 90% of orders obtained by male intimate 

stalking victims were violated. These violation rates were substantially higher than the 50% 

violation rate reported for the victims of physical assaults who had secured orders. These 

 

12 According to the National Center for Victims of Crime, Stalking Resource Center, these states include AK, CA, 

CO, FL, GA, HI, KS, MD, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NC, OH, OK, SC, TN, UT, VT, VA, WI, and WY. Additionally, 

38 states have harassment protective orders, including AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, IN, KS, LA, 

MD, MO, MT, NE, NM, NV, NH, NY, NC, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WI, and WY. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
findings follow Hall’s earlier studies (1997, 1998) where half of stalking victims secured orders 

and 81% of these were violated.

Stalker Risk 

The prior research, as mentioned, suggests that the intimate victims are not only the “most 

malignant” stalkers, but are the most likely to continue to stalk and abuse their victims. Although 

limited studies have been completed regarding stalker risk for reabuse, there is general consensus 

that, apart from length of prior criminal history, the most common risk factor is prior relationship 

between victim and stalker, with those with prior intimate relationships being higher risk (Meloy, 

2001; Mullen, 2000; Logan & Walker, 2009). As concluded by Logan and Walker (2009), in 

their review of the literature, “[s]tudies examining recidivism after court intervention 

underscores the persistence of partner stalkers (10).” Other studies have concurred, finding 

intimate stalkers more likely to recidivate than non-intimate stalkers (Rosenfeld, 2003). 

Stalking Activities 

Stalking may be discounted by observers because it generally does not include physical 

assaults against victims. The NVAWS survey estimated that only 22.1% of female and 7.4% of 

male intimates were physically assaulted by their stalkers. The SVS survey found only 21% of 

all stalking victims reported attacks and 15% against third parties or pets. In Mohandie’s 

opportunistic sample (2006), the violence rate was 30% against the stalking victim, with an 

additional 16% against third parties. 

However, the threat of violence and harm are integral to stalking. Both the SVS survey and 

Mohandie (2006) report widespread threats made by stalkers against their victims. The former 

reported a threat rate of 43.2% among all stalkers. The latter broke threats down by category of 

stalker, finding the highest rate (83%) involved intimate stalkers, followed by 66% by 

acquaintance stalkers, 50% by private stranger stalkers, and 19% by public figure stalkers. The 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
SVS survey also found that a little over a quarter of stalkers (26.1%) specifically engaged in 

cyberstalking or electronic monitoring of their victims and a little under a quarter (24.4%) 

damaged the victim’s property or that of someone in the victim’s household. 

In terms of unwanted contact, Mohandie found that the most frequent was the stalker 

approaching the victim in person (63%), followed by telephone contact (52%) and then letters, 

cards, or faxes (30%). A little more than a quarter of victims were contacted between once a day 

and once every two to three days, 36% weekly, and 21% monthly. Among intimates, the stalking 

began anywhere from immediately after breakup to four and a half months after, not including 

the 12% of cases where it began during the relationship.13 The SVS survey reported that in 

addition to receiving unwanted letters, emails, or other correspondence, stalking victims 

experienced high levels of three unwanted behaviors “most commonly associated with stalking:” 

following or spying on the victim, showing up in places without legitimate reason, or waiting 

outside (or inside) places for the victim. About half of the victims (46%) experienced at least one 

unwanted contact per week. 

As pointed out by Logan and Walker (2009), while the literature focuses on the various 

behaviors involved in stalking, it “may be better characterized by other factors such as duration, 

intensity, intrusiveness, timing, and implicit and explicit threats (17).” In other words, a focus on 

the content of stalking may not accurately reveal its seriousness or its impact on the victim. 

Do Stalking Laws Protect Victims of Domestic Violence? 

There is little evidence to evaluate whether application of stalking statutes adds value to 

 

13 The wide discrepancy in various findings concerning stalking while intimates are together can be attributed to 

differing interpretations of what constitutes stalking, compounded by the fact that victims of stalking are not apt to 

identify their abuse as stalking (see, e.g., Tjaden & Thoennes, 2001; Baum et al., 2009). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
efforts to protect victims. Generally, stalking is a serious misdemeanor or felony,14 whereas the 

majority of other domestic violence charges are lesser misdemeanors or ordinance violations 

(petty misdemeanors) (Klein, 2004, 14). However, if those identified and charged as stalkers 

reabuse at the same rates as those charged with other, lesser domestic violence offenses, then the 

under-identification of stalkers is of little consequence. If, on the other hand, the correct 

identification of stalkers makes a difference in arrests, prosecution, and likelihood of reabuse, 

then the undercharging of stalking may significantly compromise both offender accountability 

and victim and community safety. 

Ironically, the same Report to Congress that found stalking laws little used also noted that 

where used, in nearly half of the cases, the perpetrator was convicted and two-thirds of these 

convictions resulted in a jail or prison term (Kang, 1998, 2). This represents a much higher 

conviction and imprisonment rate than that evidenced by most domestic violence prosecutions 

(Klein, 2004; Garner & Maxwell, 2008). This suggests that underutilization of stalking charges 

may indeed seriously compromise offender accountability and victim safety. 

The study results that follow provide the first empirical evidence of the impact of police 

identification of stalking. While our study was limited to stalking cases involving current or 

former female intimates, family members, cohabitants, or dating partners, as described, the 

research suggests that this covers both the most numerous and the most serious portion of 

stalking cases. 

 

14 14 states classify stalking as a felony, while 35 classify it as a felony upon a second offense and/or when the crime 

involves aggravating factors such as weapon use; violation of a protective order or condition of probation, parole, or 

release; or if the victim is under 16. Only Maryland classifies stalking as only a misdemeanor. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
II. Research Design and Methods 

The following study, conducted during 2007-2008, used a mixed methods design. For the 

quantitative component, researchers compared all stalking incidents identified by Rhode Island 

law enforcement between 2001 and 2005 inclusive (“police identified” stalking) with a sample of 

domestic violence cases over the same years brought to police attention that constituted stalking 

but were cited by police for other domestic violence offenses ( “researcher identified” stalking). 

Both short and long term outcomes were compared for the two sets of cases, including: 1) arrest 

and successful prosecution of the study incident and 2) suspected stalkers’ re-arrests for domestic 

violence from two years to seven years after the study incident through July 16, 2008. 

The quantitative research was complemented by an exploratory qualitative component. Its 

purpose was to deepen our understanding of the quantitative findings and explore their 

implications from the perspective of those responding to stalking in Rhode Island: law 

enforcement officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and court advocates. The goal was to provide 

a more complete understanding of the factors influencing the criminal justice response to 

stalking. In addition, a random sample of police narratives was analyzed to determine any 

differences between police and researcher identified stalking cases not revealed in the 

quantitative data of victim, offender, incident, and police characteristics reported in the DV/SA 

forms. Methods used for the qualitative components are discussed in Chapter IV below. 

Why Rhode Island? 

For a number of reasons, Rhode Island offered researchers a unique opportunity to contribute 

significantly to the understanding of stalking laws, their utilization by multiple police 

departments across an entire state, their short term effect in terms of arrest and prosecution 

outcomes, and their longer term effect (two to seven years) on new arrests for domestic violence. 

First, Rhode Island mandates law enforcement to file all domestic violence incidents, including 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
stalking, with one agency. The definition of domestic violence in Rhode Island is broad, 

including any offense, violent or not, that involves eligible parties. These, in turn, include current 

or former spouses, intimate partners, or dating partners, as well as couples with a child in 

common, family, and household members (cohabitants). This dataset is particularly useful 

because Rhode Island has one of the highest domestic violence incident reporting rates in the 

country. Also, the required reports are the most detailed and extensive in the country. Second, 

Rhode Island also has a public automated court case file revealing prior criminal histories and 

subsequent arrests. Third, since Rhode Island’s stalking statute is based on the model stalking 

code, it is also typical of most state stalking statutes. 

A. Study Data 

The data used for this study came from the Rhode Island Supreme Court Domestic Violence 

Training and Monitoring Unit (DVU), a statewide database of domestic violence incidents 

reported to Rhode Island law enforcement. It also comes from CourtConnect, an automated court 

file that contains records of all criminal cases for the past several decades. 

Data on all incidents of domestic violence, arrests and non-arrests, are submitted to the DVU 

by Rhode Island law enforcement agencies using two forms: 1) the legislatively mandated 

Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault/Child Molestation Police Reporting Form (DV/SA form) 

and 2) incident reports of domestic abuse and/or sexual assault/child molestation, including 

police narratives. A copy of the DV/SA form is in Appendix E. 

While the DVU monitors reporting compliance by law enforcement, prior research involving 

checking their records against court arraignments for domestic violence indicates that some 

police departments may not submit all required incidents to the DVU. In a prior study (Klein et. 

al., 2005), researchers found, however, that only 3% to 5% of incident reports were not filed with 

the DVU. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The police narrative reports included all police reports, incident narratives, arrest reports 

where the defendant was arrested, dispatch reports, witness statements, and narratives provided 

by victim/witnesses, responding officers, and investigating detectives, if there was follow up 

investigation. 

Data entered into CourtConnect provides complete court histories from arraignment through 

case termination, including probation revocations, for all criminal cases brought in Rhode Island. 

The automated records contain all felony court cases entered from 1979 and misdemeanors from 

the mid-1980s onward. As a result, prior court records of defendants who reached their 18th

birthday before 1979 may not be complete for all prior felonies and those who reached their 18th

birthday before 1985 may not be complete for all misdemeanors. The file includes only offenses 

charged in court in Rhode Island. Offenses that may have been committed across the border in 

Massachusetts or Connecticut are not included. 

With only four criminal courts and one centralized registry of court cases in Rhode Island, 

CourtConnect data are consistently coded and appear to be complete. In no case did we find a 

police reported arrest that did not result in a CourtConnect record. 

B. Study Sample 

Police Identified Stalking Cases (n=108) 

Between 2001 and 2005, inclusive, police cited 108 cases as stalking with a current of former 

intimate, family member, dating, or cohabitant female victim. If the same reported stalker was 

identified as a stalker in more than one incident during this period, the case that represented the 

first time that person was identified as a stalker was used as the study stalking case. 

Researcher Identified Stalking Cases (n=160) 

To identify stalking cases from among the domestic violence cases reported to police that 

were not identified as stalking by police, we completed a content analysis of police domestic 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
violence incident narrative reports not identified by police as stalking, involving female victims 

from each year. The exercise was similar to that performed by Tjaden and Thoennes (2001) in 

the previously cited Colorado Springs study. For obvious reasons, we were unable to review the 

approximately 33,000 non-stalking domestic violence incident reports filed during the study 

period. To identify 35 incidents per year that constituted stalking but were not so identified by 

police, we began to review all eligible cases filed during the study years. For 2001, 2002, and 

2004 we began our search with cases filed January 1. For 2003 and 2005 we began with cases 

filed on April 1. As illustrated in Exhibit #2, the proportion of cases identified by researchers by 

year was similar to those identified each year by police except for 2004, which had substantially 

fewer police identified stalking cases than research identified cases. 

Exhibit # 2: Number of Police and Researcher Identified Study Stalking Cases by Year 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Police Identified Researcher Identified

As a result of this process, a greater proportion of researcher identified incidents were 

included that were reported in the months of January, February, and December, and a greater 

proportion of police identified cases were reported in the months of April, August, September, 

October, and November. The variance in the months in which the two sets of incidents were 

reported represents a research design limitation, although prior research has not indicated a 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
seasonal difference in stalking cases. Further, while the specific incident that was identified as 

stalking either by police or researchers may have been reported in a specific month, the 

antecedent activities required for a case to constitute stalking may have taken place over many 

other months and time periods. 

Incidents were cited as stalking if the report contained sufficient information indicating the 

incident met the legal criteria of prohibited stalking (Rhode Island General Laws §11-59-2), 

namely, the person: 1) harasses another person or 2) willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly 

follows another person with the intent to place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury. 

“Harasses” is defined as a “knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person 

with the intent to seriously alarm, annoy, or bother the person, and which serves no legitimate 

purpose.” The course of conduct must cause “a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional 

distress, or be in fear of bodily injury (11-59-1(2)).” A “course of conduct” is defined as “a series 

of acts over a period of time, evidencing a continuity of purpose.” Constitutionally protected 

activity is not included within this meaning (11-59-1(1)).15 In regard to “following,” the activity 

must be repeated. 

We examined a total of 2,582 domestic violence incidents for the years 2001 through 2005, 

inclusive, and identified 175 as meeting the criteria for the crime of stalking, 35 for each study 

year. The actual number of stalkers used in the study was less. In 12 cases, the same stalker was 

identified in more than one year and in three other cases the uncharged stalker had been charged 

as a stalker in a prior study year and was therefore already included as a police identified stalker. 

 

15 The Rhode Island Supreme Court found that the statute met the constitutional test by giving adequate warning to 

potential offenders of the prohibited conduct. Unlike a Massachusetts High Court ruling that found that state’s 

statute unconstitutional, it ruled: "It indeed defies logic to conclude that a defendant would have to commit more 

than one series of harassing acts in order to be found guilty of stalking."State v. Fonseca, 670 A.2d 1237 (R.I. 

1996). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
In making the determination that a case constituted stalking, the researchers reviewed the 

police narrative reports, as described above. Appendix C contains the classification template 

used to analyze cases to determine if they constituted stalking. We included only cases where 

each element was clearly evident and supported by the data reviewed. Cases were often 

excluded, for example, where incident reports were not complete or were not detailed enough to 

reveal distinct repeated acts of qualifying abuse, or if a victim’s emotional distress or fear was 

not clearly evident. In determining whether or not the behavior was repeated, we looked to see if 

the police narrative included statements such as “the victim contacted police about a similar 

assault twice in the past month,” “the defendant has violated this restraining order several times 

with this victim,” or statements that made it clear that the suspect continued to engage in a 

pattern of harassing behavior. Almost universally, the repeated activities noted in the police 

narratives occurred within months of the incident included in the study. This was true both for 

police and researcher identified stalking cases. 

To ensure the reliability and validity of the selection of researcher identified stalking cases, a 

random sample of 25 narratives was reviewed by two other researchers. The sample included 

cases both identified as stalking and those not identified by the initial reviewer. In only one case 

did a second reviewer disagree with the assessment of her peers, identifying a case as stalking 

that had been rejected by her peers. While the strict standards we adopted may have excluded 

eligible stalking cases, the resulting sample constituted clear examples of stalking incidents, 

notwithstanding the fact that they were not identified as such by local law enforcement. 

To confirm the validity of the selection of researcher identified stalking cases, we also 

compared the specific suspect, victim, and incident characteristics contained in the DV/SA 

reports filed by police on all cases to reveal any significant differences between the police and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
researcher identified cases and determine if any of these differences related to the determination 

of a case as stalking. We also compared both police and researcher identified stalking suspect, 

victim, and incident characteristics with a large sample of non-stalking domestic violence 

reported case characteristics (N=13,216) involving current or former intimate, family member, 

dating, or cohabitant female victims in 2002 and 2004 to determine how any differences found 

between police and researcher identified stalkers compared to differences between both police 

and researcher identified stalkers and non-stalking general domestic violence cases. 

C. Study Measures 

Prior Criminal Histories 

In determining suspect prior criminal histories, we relied on records of all court cases entered 

into the automated Rhode Island court file, CourtConnect, through the last record check on July 

16, 2008. The prior court cases are broken down by category: those involving domestic violence; 

those involving crimes against persons that were not considered domestic violence (the 

relationship of victim and offender was not current or former intimates, household or family 

members); substance abuse cases where the offenses involved alcohol, such as drunk driving, or 

substance abuse, generally possession of an illicit substance; and “other,” mostly major motor 

vehicle offenses. Additionally, prior court dispositions are broken down, including any case that 

resulted in the court placing the defendant under probation supervision or in prison. The 

underlying sentences for the former include “guilty probation, guilty suspended sentence, or 

guilty filed.” Domestic violence cases that are “filed” in court include the same mandatory 

conditions as those placed on probation, including completion of a batterer program, although 

the defendant is supervised by an agency other than the state probation and parole department. 

Prior prison sentences include any case, misdemeanor or felony, where the defendant was 

sentenced to prison for all or part of the total sentence (there is only one prison facility in the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
state; it holds both misdemeanants and felons) or if the defendant’s probationary sentence was 

revoked and the defendant was subsequently incarcerated before the study incident. If a 

probationary sentence was revoked and the defendant was incarcerated after the study incident, 

the prior case is coded as a probationary sentence because the defendant did not serve any time 

in prison before the study incident. 

Domestic Violence Recidivism 

Domestic violence recidivism is measured by a domestic violence arrest that occurred after 

the study offense that was entered on the court’s automated record keeping system on or before 

July 16, 2008. The new domestic violence arrest may involve the same or different victim than 

the study victim. By measuring re-arrests for domestic violence, the study cannot reveal actual 

suspect reabuse rates, just new domestic violence that resulted in an arrest that was recorded in 

the court files.16

Re-victimization rates would have been inevitably higher if actual study victims were 

interviewed or police incident reports were reviewed through July 16, 2008. By tracking reabuse 

through July 16, 2008, the minimal follow up for study stalkers after their study incident was two 

and one half years. The maximum time was seven and one half years. According to the NVAWS, 

the average stalking case lasts 1.8 years (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, 425). According to the SVS, 

more than half of stalking cases lasted a year or less. If these surveys are accurate, even the 

shortest study period should capture most arrests where the offender was arrested for reabusing 

the study victim. We also determined reabuse for any new domestic violence arrest occurring 2.5 

years after each study incident to ensure that all study suspects had the same time frame to 

reabuse. 

 

16 In other words, the defendant was arrested and scheduled for a court arraignment on domestic violence charges 

regardless of whether he showed up in court for the arraignment. The rearrests do not include cases where police 

issued warrants for a suspect’s arrest and the warrant was not served through July 16, 2008. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
D. Quantitative Analysis Methods 

To address the main study questions quantitatively, we conducted three sets of analyses in 

sequence. First, we examined the data for differences in background characteristics (suspect 

characteristics, victim characteristics, and incident characteristics) between the police identified 

and researcher identified stalkers to determine the comparability of the groups. Because our data 

includes all the cases cited by police for stalking in Rhode Island between 2001 and 2005, we 

treated the group of police identified stalkers as the full population of interest, and compared the 

sample of researcher identified stalkers to the fixed population values from the police identified 

group for these measures, using t-tests and one sample test of proportions. 

We also compared both police and researcher identified stalkers with non-stalking domestic 

violence incidents reported by police in 2002 and 2004 involving female victims across Rhode 

Island to see how either set of cases compared to general domestic violence cases. The nonstalking domestic violence cases were not exactly equivalent, covering only two of the study 

years, and included multiple cases involving the same suspects, unlike the police or researcher 

identified cases, which have only unduplicated suspects. As a result, the comparisons can only 

suggest substantial differences among these cases. 

Second, we examined across both groups whether background factors were predictive of the 

short term (arrest, prosecution, charge disposition) and long term (reabuse) outcomes of interest 

using t-tests and chi square tests. These analyses revealed, as we expected, few factors predictive 

of reabuse. The literature indicates that younger age and a history of prior offenses are the only 

factors consistently associated with recidivism.17 In this study, we found these associations 

 

17 Klein, A. (2008). Practical Implications of Domestic Violence Research: Part II Prosecutors. Washington D.C., 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, p.30, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222319.pdf

. Offender gender is also a powerful predictor but in this study all of the stalkers are male eliminating gender as a 

factor. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
(p=.07 for age, p<.001 for prior offenses) and only one other association (victim was noted by 

the police officer to be shaking) that was statistically significant at the 5% level. This last 

variable, however, applied to only 54 of the victims, 28 police identified and 27 researcher 

identified victims. 

At the outset of this project, we had anticipated needing to use propensity scores to control 

for background differences between the police identified and researcher identified groups. 

However, since we did not find a pattern of important pre-existing differences between the 

researcher identified and police identified stalkers, and the one difference we did find works to 

make the test of our hypothesis more conservative, we decided to conduct a more parsimonious 

analysis and proceed without adjustment via propensity scores. To control for the effects of prior 

criminal histories, we compared police and researcher identified stalkers for those with no prior 

criminal histories and again for those with no prior domestic violence histories. 

For the third set of analyses examining the primary study hypotheses, we related group 

membership to the short and long term outcomes (arrest, prosecution, dispositions, and reabuse) 

using standard bivariate statistical tests, as above. Because we had specific directional 

hypotheses for these analyses, we used one-tailed tests.

 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
III: Findings

A. Are police fully identifying stalking cases from among reported 

domestic violence cases? 

No. For every incident identified by police as stalking during the study period, they did not 

identify almost 21 other cases of stalking. There were a little more than 33,000 police domestic 

violence incident reports with female victims filed during the study period. The 108 police 

identified stalking cases came to 0.33% of the total cases reported. Based on the research 

identification of stalking cases from a sample of cases during the same study period, another 

6.8% of the cases also constituted stalking, but were not so identified by police. 

Exhibit # 3 illustrates the number of cases of police and researcher identified stalkers in the 

study for each year, as well as the number of cases reviewed to identify the latter. 

Exhibit # 3: Cases by Year: Police and Researcher Identified Stalkers 

Year 

Police Identified 

(unduplicated) 

Stalkers 

(total population) 

Other Domestic 

Violence Cases 

Reviewed by 

Researchers 

Researcher 

Identified Stalkers 

(before duplicates 

removed) 

Stalking Cases Found by 

Researchers from 

Domestic Violence Cases 

2001 22 529 35 6.6% 

2002 24 564 35 6.2% 

2003 24 692 35 5.1% 

2004 13 286 35 12.2% 

2005 25 521 35 6.7% 

Total 108 2,582 175 6.8% 

Although researchers identified 160 unduplicated abusers as stalkers from the 175 identified 

stalking cases reported in the sample, police cited them for a variety of other domestic violence 

charges, as illustrated in Exhibit # 4. The total number of cited charges for researcher identified 

stalkers exceeds the number of defendants because some researcher identified stalkers were cited 

by police for multiple domestic violence charges. The most common multiple charges cited by 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
police were violation of protective/no contact orders18 and threatening phone calls.19 The total 

number of stalking cases listed in Exhibit # 4 also includes multiple incidents involving the same 

stalker within the same year. In the study, stalking incidents are limited to the first such case for 

each defendant. A second charge of stalking in the same year would be counted as abuse 

recidivism (a new domestic violence arrest). 

Exhibit # 4: Charges Cited by Police for Researcher Identified Stalking Sample Charges* 

Police Charge Charges 

Reviewed 

Number 

Associated w/ Researcher 

Identified Stalker 

Percent Associated with 

Researcher 

Identified Stalker 

Assault 1,288 12 1% 

Other charges or no 

charges cited 670 41 6.1% 

Violation of protective 

or no contact order 417 76 18.2% 

Disorderly conduct 414 17 4.1% 

Malicious property 

damage (vandalism) 290 9 3.1% 

Fail to relinquish phone 170 1 0.6% 

Threatening phone call 95 44 6.3% 

Breaking and entering 28 4 14.3% 

Total 3,372 204 6.05% 

*More than one charge may have been lodged against each suspect. 

As illustrated in Exhibit # 4, breaking and entering and violation of protective (civil) or no 

contact (criminal) order charges cited by police had the greatest likelihood of constituting 

stalking. Assault and failure to relinquish phone charges were the least likely. 

 

18 Protective orders are civil orders obtained by victims. Violation of such an order is a misdemeanor. No contact 

orders are automatically issued after a domestic violence arrest and remain until removed by a judge, or when the 

case is dismissed. Violation of a no contact order is also a misdemeanor. For the purpose of this study, violations of 

either type of order are combined into one category as a domestic violence offense. 

19 Officially, threatening phone calls come under the general offense R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-17(a), “crank/obscene 

phone call,” but include “telephon[ing] any person for the purpose of using any threatening, vulgar, indecent, 

obscene, or immoral language over the telephone.” 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Police Narrative Analysis 

Exhibit # 5 provides an example of two police narratives examined. The first was cited by 

police as stalking, the other for another domestic violence offense. Based on our analysis, we 

determined the second also constituted stalking, possessing all of the equivalent necessary legal 

ingredients as the first. 

Exhibit # 5: Police Compared to Researcher Identified Stalking Narrative 

1st Stalking Narrative 

The victim reported numerous harassing phone calls from her ex-husband of four months. The 

calls, in excess of 30, also violated a no contact order. The calls included, she told police, 

“general statements that she had robbed [suspect] of everything, that she had tried to put 

[suspect] in jail and that there were consequences to be paid.” Police officers listened to two of 

the messages on the victim’s answering service and noted that the suspect seemed “extremely 

distraught, he cried” and “at times could not talk.” The officers added, however, that they “did 

not hear nor did [victim] indicate that any specific threat had been made.” Officers confirmed 

that a no contact order was on record and active until the following year. Police cited the suspect 

for stalking. 

2nd Stalking Narrative 

The victim reported approximately 15 threatening phone calls from her husband from whom 

she was seeking a divorce. The victim indicated that the suspect had assaulted her in the past and 

that “she fears he may hurt her.” The series of phone calls began, the victim reported, with the 

suspect cancelling visitation with the daughter. However, during the call he began discussing the 

impending divorce, stating he “was angry because he was told by the court that he had to have 

her vehicle registration reinstated and also had to have her insurance reinstated.” The suspect 

added that “he would make her life miserable if he had to do those things.” At that point, the 

victim stated that she hung up the phone. The suspect then placed several more calls that the 

victim did not answer, but after the calls continued, she answered one of them. The suspect told 

her “I’m going to make your life hell,” “if I see you, I will kick you in the face” and “if I catch 

you with another guy, I’ll kill you.” She hung up and the calls continued. She reported that she 

picked up and hung up further calls without speaking with the suspect, but traced each call by 

dialing *57. Fearful, the victim went to her neighbor’s across the street. While at the neighbor’s 

home, her neighbor answered one of the telephone calls from the suspect and reported to police 

that the suspect threatened him, stating he was “going to cut his head off.” Police also 

determined that the suspect had called the victim’s mother’s home “approximately 10 times in 

the past hour” looking for the victim. Officers also noted that the suspect “called the house four 

times” when they were present and that they observed the victim telling the suspect that “she did 

not want to talk to him and told him to stop calling.” The victim had a protective order against 

the suspect previously but it was not active at the time. Police cited the suspect for threatening 

phone calls. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
In the first narrative, the suspect made repeated harassing calls to the victim that obviously 

seriously annoyed or bothered her. Further, the calls served no legitimate purpose. The first 

victim had a protective order against her ex-husband. To have obtained a protective order, the 

court had to find that the respondent, the ex-husband, had attempted to cause or caused physical 

harm to his victim and/or placed her in fear of imminent serious physical harm or sexually 

assaulted or stalked her (R.I. Gen. Laws§15-15-1). In the second narrative, the suspect also made 

repeated harassing and threatening calls to the victim. Although the second victim had secured a 

protective order against her estranged husband in the past, it was no longer active. However, she 

told police that she still feared being hurt by him, stating also that he had threatened to kill her. 

Further, there is evidence that the victim was tracking the victim, calling her when she retreated 

to a neighbor’s house after having called the victim’s mother repeatedly to find her. 

On the whole, researchers could not find substantial differences between the two sets of 

police narratives. Almost 40% were interchangeable in terms of the nature and severity of the 

stalking activity and where the stalking occurred. In another third of police and researcher 

identified stalking cases, we found them interchangeable in terms of the nature and severity of 

the stalking activity, but the police identified stalking narratives described events that occurred in 

public and/or with multiple witnesses able to substantiate the charges. 

Exhibit # 6 provides an example of two narratives illustrating these cases. In both, the 

stalking activity is evident, but in the first, where police identified the case as stalking, the case 

was reported by a third party and a third party was able to verify the reported stalking. The 

stalking took place in a University dormitory. By contrast, in the second research identified 

stalking case, there were no collaborative witnesses. The victim reported the stalking herself. The 

stalking took place within her own home where she was alone. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Exhibit # 6: Police and Researcher Identified Stalking Narratives: With and Without Witnesses 

Police identified stalker with witnesses in public place 

Police were dispatched to the security office at ___ University. Upon arrival, officers met 

with a campus security officer and the victim, a student at the university. The victim’s roommate 

made the initial call to campus security because, according to the victim, “she feels 

uncomfortable when [suspect]” shows up at their room. The victim reported that “she was being 

harassed by her ex-boyfriend, a summer resident of the dormitory who was working for food 

services at the college. They had dated for approximately one year and ended the relationship 

four months earlier. According to the victim, the suspect “shows up at her room from time to 

time despite the fact she has repeatedly told him to leave her alone.” The victim stated to police 

that the suspect has never hit her, but he does make her and her roommate “very nervous.” The 

suspect had “taken all the courses she has signed up for, sends her emails on her computer, and 

has called her at various times.” The victim’s roommate confirmed the victim’s report. In a 

written witness statement, the victim wrote “though I don’t feel [suspect] is capable of physically 

harming me, he is becoming a disruption in my roommate’s and my life.” After taking the report, 

campus security officers accompanied police to the suspect’s dormitory room, told the suspect to 

stay away and not contact the victim again. Officers also informed him that a detective would 

contact him in the next few days. The detective did and arrested him for stalking. 

Researcher identified case with no witnesses in private 

The victim came to the police station to report that “her ex-boyfriend...had broken into her 

house...and pushed her.” The two had been involved in a relationship that was ended by the 

victim two months earlier when she asked the suspect to move out of the home. She reported that 

“since that time [the suspect] has continuously harassed her by following her to her friends’ and 

family members’ houses and not leaving when repeatedly asked.” On the date of this incident, 

she reported that the suspect had called her at home and that, during that call, she told him “not 

to come to her home and not to call her anymore.” She reported that “a short time later, she was 

on the telephone with a friend when the line went dead” and, within minutes, the suspect entered 

her home. She argued with the suspect and told him to leave. The suspect responded by pushing 

her, refusing to leave, and stating that he “wished to speak to her about working things out” and 

then “stayed in the house for several hours.” The victim could not call the police because the 

phone line had gone dead prior to the suspect entering her home. 

According to the victim, the suspect admitted to “breaking the phone line” from the exterior 

of the house, but agreed to “fix it before leaving.” The suspect also reportedly “broke the locks” 

of the kitchen window and pushed on the window in order to gain entry. When officers returned 

with the victim to her home they wrote that the phone line “appeared to have been broken and 

taped back together,” and “the window...had been broken.” The officers ran a criminal check 

and found that the suspect had “an extensive criminal record including charges in Massachusetts 

of attempted murder, discharging a firearm, assault to kill, assault and battery/dangerous weapon 

and breaking and entering” and had a Rhode Island warrant for “an assault charge.” The 

responding police officers cited the suspect for Breaking and Entering, Simple Domestic Assault 

(misdemeanor), and Failure to Relinquish the Telephone, but not stalking. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
 Another 14% of the police narratives were similar in terms of nature and severity of the 

reported stalking, but the victims in the police identified stalking reports appeared to be more 

persistent than victims in the researcher identified stalking cases. One, for example, was a U.S. 

postal employee who was stalked while on the job. The postal employee made multiple calls to 

police and police finally “caught” the suspect in the act. Four of the police identified stalking 

victims also specifically used the term “stalking” when they called police. None of the researcher 

identified victims was reported to have used the specific term of “stalking.” 20

Additional narratives summaries illustrating the similarity between police and researcher 

identified are contained in Appendix A. 

A review of the police narratives also suggests that police under-identification of stalking 

cases may be aggravated by their failure to note cyberstalking, or victims’ failure to inform 

police of cyberstalking. Although Rhode Island specifically enacted an anti-cyberstalking law 

(R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-52-4.2) in 2001,21 only one of the stalking cases identified by police was 

cited as cyberstalking; it is described in Exhibit # 7. Researchers noted use of emails and other 

electronic means of communication described in some researcher identified cases, but did not 

separate them out from non-cyberstalking cases. 

 

20 In the Colorado study, researchers found victims did not use the term stalking and in the SVS survey almost half 

of the interviewed stalking victims did not use the term stalking in describing their victimization. 

21 The law states: “(a) Whoever transmits any communication by computer to any person or causes any person to be 

contacted for the sole purpose of harassing that person or his or her family is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be 

punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), by imprisonment for not more than one year, or 

both. For the purpose of this section, ‘harasses’ means following a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at 

a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, or bothers the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The 

course of conduct must be of a kind that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, or 

be in fear of bodily injury. ‘Course of conduct’ means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a 

period of time, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the 

meaning of "course of conduct. 

(b) A second or subsequent conviction under subsection (a) of this section shall be deemed a felony punishable by 

imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, by a fine of not more than six thousand dollars ($6,000), or both.” 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Exhibit # 7: Cyberstalking Narrative

The victim called police in October 2003. The court had issued a mutual protective order 

against the victim and her former live-in boyfriend (46) of six years a week earlier. Almost 

immediately, the victim told police she began receiving harassing and threatening emails from, 

she believed, her ex-boyfriend although the emails came under three different addresses, 

“shallowman, neilnbobnomore, and afoollikeu.” She received 15 in all. According to the police, 

the emails were “sexually degrading” and “threatening.” They also indicated that the sender was 

observing the victim, identifying what she was wearing the day an email was sent, for example. 

The police detective verified that the protective order existed and that the ex-boyfriend had 

been arrested by another police department a few days earlier for crank/obscene phone 

calls/domestic and violation of the protective order. At his arraignment, the ex-boyfriend had 

been ordered to have no contact with the victim. 

The detective analyzed the header information of the emails in question and identified the 

originating Internet Protocol Number. He then referenced the American Registry for Internet 

Numbers and determined that the number was subscribed to XXX Communications (name 

changed). Within the week, the detective obtained a court search warrant and obtained from 

XXX Communication confirmation that the IP address was assigned to the ex-boyfriend. 

The ex-boyfriend was then arraigned for cyberstalking. Bail was set at $1,000 cash with the 

stipulation of no contact with victim. In addition, the defendant was held, as it was determined 

that he had violated the bail release of the pending violation of protective order charge and 

crank/obscene phone call. 

The detective then secured a formal Witness Statement from the victim. The victim indicated 

that in addition to the emails, the defendant had left messages on her voice mail. She told police 

the emails made her afraid, fearing for her safety, causing her to get rides to and from work, as 

well as sleeping in different locations each night. She also said she received hang up calls at 

work. Her boss had observed the defendant in front of the building where she worked and 

received calls from the defendant the day the victim received the hang up calls. 

Police interviewed the boss who told police that the defendant had worked for him prior to the 

victim. He verified he had received calls from the defendant. When shown the emails sent to the 

victim, he said the phrases were similar to that used by the defendant, including statements about 

oral sex. He also stated he observed the defendant in front of his business. He states his 

conversations with the defendant centered on an alleged embezzlement by the defendant of 

company funds. The defendant asked that the company fire the victim as part of his conversation 

about the allegedly embezzled funds. 

The victim subsequently told police that the defendant had told her he had acquired a .357 

handgun. The boss indicated that he owned such a gun but the gun was missing from his office 

soon after the defendant had left his employment. The detective secured a search warrant for the 

defendant’s home in order to gather evidence related to cyberstalking as well as the handgun. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The search turned up a computer, which was seized as well as a note with handwriting that 

listed the three names used in the emails. The defendant’s brother who was at the house at the 

time of the search said the handwriting was that of his father. The father was questioned and told 

police he had minimal use of the computer and had no part in sending emails to the victim or any 

involvement in the Hotmail account. 

Police determined that, in 1991, the defendant had been arrested for a domestic assault and 

two violations of protective orders in a case not involving the study victim. Both sets of cases 

were eventually dismissed. Immediately before the defendant was charged with cyberstalking, he 

was arraigned for a threatening phone call for which he was later sentenced to 30 days in jail, 11 

months suspended with probation, and ordered to complete a batterer program and have no 

contact with the victim. Before he received this disposition, he was arraigned for the 

cyberstalking described above. He was sentenced to one year suspended in November 2003, 

concurrent with the prior phone threats case. 

On that same day, he was also charged and arraigned with violating the protective order then 

outstanding. He was also sentenced on that case and given another one year suspended sentence. 

A little more than a month later, he was arraigned for violation of a no contact order issued 

when he was sentenced to prison. He was given another one year suspended sentence and 

ordered to complete a batterer program and have no contact with the victim. 

Two months later, in January 2004, he was arraigned again for violating the protective order. 

The following May, he was sentenced to 45 days home confinement, 320 days suspended and 

probation for one year. He was ordered to complete the batterer program again and have no 

contact with the victim. 

Differences between police and researcher identified stalking case 

characteristics 

The comparison of police identified stalking cases and researcher identified stalking cases 

reveal few statistically significant differences in terms of suspect, victim, and incident 

characteristics. However, among the few significant differences found are specific incident 

variables that support the researcher narrative content analysis described above. 

Exhibit # 8 contains a comparison of the two groups of cases, including which differences are 

significant. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Exhibit # 8: Differences Between Police and Researcher Identified Cases 

Variable 

Police Identified 

Stalking Cases 

n=108 (population) 

Researcher Identified 

Stalking Cases 

n=160 (sample) 

p Value 

Suspect Characteristics 

Age (average) 35 years 34.1 years 0.18 

Gender: male 94.4% 98.1% .037* 

Ethnicity/Race: white (missing=7) 76.0% 75.2% 0.37 

Prior criminal history 74.1% 72.5% 0.65 

Prior DV 59.3% 50.0% .019* 

Prior drug/alcohol 26.9% 24.4% 0.53 

Prior probation 61.1% 59.4% 0.69 

Prior imprisonment 20.4% 24.4% 0.24 

Victim Characteristics 

Current relationship (missing= 9) 23.4% .30.3% .055 

Married 16.2% 15.0% 

Divorced 9.1% 10.0% 

Intimate partner (IP) 4.0% 8.1% 

Ex-intimate (Ex-IP) 63.6% 56.25% 

Relative 5.05% 5.0% 

Dating 2.0% 5.0% 

Cohabitant 0 0.6% 

Ethnicity/race: white (missing=9) 74.5% 82.2% .086 

Live together 7.5% 5.6% 0.45 

Child at home 40.7% 55.0% >.001*** 

Dwell –victim’s name (missing=49) 58.5% 58.4% 1 

Protective order 54.6% 58.8% 0.3 

Active order 47.2% 45.6% 0.75 

Unserved order 7.4% 5.0% 0.29 

Prior assault 44.4% 60.0% > .001*** 

Prior police response 56.5% 46.9% 0.017* 

Victim demeanor-afraid 54.6% 49.4% 0.20 

Victim uncooperative 2.8% 6.9% .0057*** 

Incident Characteristics 

Physical assault 10.2% 11%.9 0.51 

Visible injury 5.6% 3.75% 0.39 

Weapon 9.3% 4.4% .029* 

Threat to victim 44.4% 56.2% 0.0031** 

Threat to other 14.8% 10.6% 0.15 

Property damage 11.1% 13.8% 0.31 

Property stolen 7.4% 3.1% .034* 

Location: indoors/dwelling 50.5% 82.1% >.001*** 

Incident reporter – victim/other (missing=5) 79.4% 93.5% >.001*** 

Witness 49.1% 37.5% 0.0034* 

Suspect left scene 31.5% 31.2% 1 

* p>.05, **p>.01, ***p>.001 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Suspect Characteristics 

While the researcher identified stalkers were significantly more likely to be males, the 

overwhelming majority of both sets of stalkers were male. The police identified stalkers were 

significantly more likely to have criminal histories for domestic violence, although in all other 

respects their criminal histories were not significantly different. The vast majority of both 

researcher and police identified stalkers possessed prior criminal histories. The majority of both 

groups of suspects had been sentenced to probation at least once in the past. 

Victim Characteristics 

The police identified victims were significantly less likely to have children in the homes. The 

researcher identified victims were significantly more likely to report prior assaults by their 

suspect stalkers, but the police noted they were significantly more likely to have responded in the 

past to police identified stalking couples. Although researcher identified victims were 

significantly more likely to refuse to cooperate with police, indicated by their refusal to sign a 

statement or fill out the DV/SA body map of injuries, the percent that refused was small. 

Incident Characteristics 

While police identified stalking incidents were significantly more likely to involve a weapon 

and feature stolen property, the percentage of incidents with these characteristics was relatively 

small. The major significant difference was a greater likelihood of threats being made against the 

research identified victims. Other than that, the physical location of the incident (being outdoors, 

not a dwelling), who reported the incident (being someone other than the victim), and presence 

of witnesses were all significantly more likely in the police identified stalking incidents. 

Comparison with General Abuse Cases 

The comparison of both police and researcher identified case characteristics with nonstalking domestic violence cases reported in 2002 and 2004 will be discussed in more detail 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
subsequently. However, in brief, the comparison revealed that notwithstanding the few 

significant differences found between police and researcher identified cases, the differences 

paled compared to the differences between police and researcher identified cases and general 

abuse cases in most respects. In regard to the few variables where the general abuse cases more 

closely resembled the research identified cases, the similarities validate the researcher 

identification of stalking cases (see Exhibit # 10 below). 

Discussion 

Our finding that police grossly under-identify stalking cases from among reported domestic 

violence cases confirms the earlier study conducted in Colorado Springs, Colorado by Tjaden 

and Thoennes (2001). They reviewed 1,731 police incident reports and found that either the 

victim or police officer described that the suspect had stalked the victim or had engaged in 

stalking behaviors in 16.5% of the reports (8). Notwithstanding this, defendants were generally 

charged with harassment or violation of a restraining order. Police cited only one for stalking (8). 

The higher rate of unidentified stalking cases found by Tjaden and Thoennes can be 

explained by differences in both the methodology utilized to identify stalking cases and the 

contexts of each study. First, our research excluded cases involving male victims. Males 

constituted 23% of Colorado’s study sample.22 Our research included stalkers who were nonspousal family members (4.5%), excluded in the Colorado study. 

Second, the criteria utilized for determining stalking cases differed. In our review, we did not 

assume all victims experienced the requisite fear or emotional distress to qualify for stalking as 

did the Colorado researchers (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2001, 6). We excluded cases where neither 

victim nor police indicated victim fear of bodily injury or death, where the victim did not suffer 

 

22 While male victims constituted 23% of the cases studied, they were much less likely to be identified as victims of 

stalking than females, 10.5% compared to 18.3% of cases with female victims. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
substantial emotional distress, or where a reasonable person would not have experienced such 

fear or distress. Also, we reviewed every report filed until we reached 35 each year, regardless of 

whether the reports were complete, whether they contained victim and police narratives, whether 

police arrested the suspect, or whether they determined probable cause. The Colorado 

researchers excluded 3% of the cases where victim and/or police narrative reports were missing 

(18). 

Third, our research was conducted from three to eight years later than that in Colorado, and 

in a different state. Both Rhode Island police and victims had more time to become familiar with 

their state’s stalking statute. Both Colorado and Rhode Island enacted their stalking statutes in 

1992. The Colorado statute was not upheld by its Supreme Court until 1999, after the study 

period (Colorado vs. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225). Rhode Island’s statute was upheld in 1996, five years 

before the beginning of the study period (State vs. Fonseca, 670 A.2d 1237). 

Fourth, although training, policies, and supervision undoubtedly vary among Rhode Island’s 

39 state and local police departments, most or all may differ from those present in Colorado 

Springs. Also, unlike Colorado, Rhode Island does not have a general harassment statute. This 

may have left police with a less obvious alternative domestic violence charge than what was 

readily available to Colorado Springs police.23 

Fifth, the demographics of the two states differ. In the Colorado study, only 55.1% of the 

suspects were white. In Rhode Island, with a lower minority population, three-quarters were 

white. On the other hand, the Colorado study found no relationship between stalking prevalence 

 

23 Rhode Island Gen. laws § 16-76.1-1 limits harassment to the following circumstances: When a student has 

presented to an institution of higher education an internal complaint alleging harassment on the basis of race or 

color, religion, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or country of ancestral origin, 

the institution shall be required to disclose in a timely manner in writing to that student the disposition of the 

complaint, including a description of any action taken in resolution of the complaint; provided, however, no other 

personnel information shall be disclosed to the complainant. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
and either the victim or suspect’s race or ethnicity (22), although other studies find lower 

stalking rates among blacks (Baum et al. 2009). 

Finally, the actual (and unknown) base rates for stalking may be substantially different 

between the two states. 

Otherwise the two studies were similar. In both studies, very few victims used the term 

“stalking” in describing their abusers’ actions. In both studies, “stalking-like” behavior included 

“repeated following” and repeated (more than once) unwanted communications by phone, letter, 

face-to-face confrontations, and email, although we found few instances of repeated following.

The comparison of police and researcher identified stalking cases suggests that extra-legal 

variables influenced police identification of stalking cases. These non-legal variables include 

prior police contact with the parties involved, as well as police belief of whether or not the case 

would be successfully prosecuted as stalking. Police were more likely to cite a suspect for 

stalking if they had responded to the individuals involved before and had arrested the suspect 

previously for domestic violence, notwithstanding the fact that researcher identified stalking 

victims reported more prior assaults by their suspects and the study incidents were more likely to 

include explicit threats made against the victims. Further, it appears that police were more likely 

to cite a suspect for stalking if the incident occurred where witnesses other than the victim were 

present, including cases where someone other than the victim reported the abuse to police. These 

latter findings were mirrored in both the review of police narrative reports and case 

characteristics contained in the DV/SA forms. 

Both of these extra-legal considerations may indicate that police do not find stalking victims 

credible or do not believe prosecutors, potential juries, or judges will find them credible. Police 

may also discount prior domestic violence offenses that did not specifically involve their 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
department. Exhibit # 9 provides an example of such a case where police ignored conduct that 

occurred outside their jurisdiction, even conduct identified as domestic violence by other police 

departments. 

Exhibit # 9: Multiple Charges in Multiple Jurisdictions May Discourage Stalking Cites 

The 17-year-old victim went to the police department where she worked to report two phone 

calls she had received that morning on her cell phone from a 19-year-old man she had been 

dating for the past year. In one phone call, he left a voice mail that said, “Pick up your f_____ 

phone you stupid bitch, if you don’t pick it up I’ll call your home phone and tell your parents. 

This is your last dance, I’ll go crazy.” The victim explained that she had received this phone call 

while she was working at a restaurant located in that city. She added that she “has been harassed 

by [the suspect] for several months” at her residence in another city and on her cell phone in 

various locations. The police advised her to contact the police in the town of her residence in 

regard to the ongoing harassment and phone calls that occurred while at home. 

The police noted in their report that this victim had been assaulted by this suspect four months 

earlier and that there was an active warrant out for his arrest following that incident in another 

town. After reviewing this case with the Lieutenant, the officer indicated that the suspect would 

be charged with making annoying phone calls under the domestic statute. 

The local officers traced the phone number from which the victim received the call and 

contacted the Rhode Island State Police to advise them of the complaint and the active arrest 

warrant for the suspect outside the local police department’s city. State police responded to the 

address and found the suspect. He attempted unsuccessfully to leave the scene by jumping out of 

a window. When caught, he was placed under arrest. The suspect was transported to district court 

and charged with the annoying phone calls filed in the city where the victim worked. He was also 

arraigned on the charges from the court warrant from another jurisdiction and held without bail. 

Neither the state police nor the local police department cited the defendant for stalking, nor 

was he eventually prosecuted in court for stalking. 

While the quantitative comparison also reveals that researcher identified stalking victims 

were significantly more likely to have children in the household, whether this also influenced 

police behavior remains open. Neither the review of police narratives nor discussions with police 

officers suggest the presence of children influenced police decision-making in regard to 

identification of a case as stalking.24 The relevance of children in the household to stalking 

identification requires further research. 

 

24 This finding stands in contrast to a study of uncited stalking cases in Colorado where researchers found that 

stalking was less likely if children are in the home (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2001). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
B. Do stalking cases differ from general domestic violence cases 

reported to police? 

As mentioned, notwithstanding even the few significant differences between the police and 

researcher identified stalking cases, both sets of stalking cases consistently and substantially 

differed from general non-stalking domestic violence cases reported in 2002 and 2004. Exhibit # 

10 lists the suspect, victim, and incident characteristic comparisons for police identified stalkers, 

researcher identified stalkers, and general abusers from 2002 and 2004. 

Exhibit # 10: Comparison of Study and General Abuse Cases 

Variable 

Police Identified 

Stalking Cases 

n=108 

Researcher Identified 

Stalking Cases 

n=160 

General Abuse Cases 

n=13,216 

Suspect Characteristics 

Male 84.4% 98.1% 94.1% 

Age (average) 35% 34.1% 33.7% 

Race (white) 76% 75.2% 67.4% 

Victim Characteristics 

Current intimates 23.4% 30.3% 66.4% 

Living together 7.5% 5.6% 49% 

Children in household 40.7% 55% 50.9% 

Dwelling (victim/joint) 58.5% 58.4% 59% 

Protective order 54.6% 58.8% 26.4%5 

Active order 47.2% 45.6% 16.9% 

Prior police response 56.5% 46% 30.1% 

Prior assaults 44.4% 60% 42.2% 

Incident Characteristics 

Victim called police 79.4% 93.5% 66.8% 

Incident dwelling/indoors 50% 82% 82.7% 

Witnesses 49.1% 37.5% 35.6% 

Assault 10.2% 11.9% 49.8% 

Victim injuries 5.6% 3.75% 27.25% 

Weapon 9.3% 4.4% 7.7% 

Victim threatened 44.4% 56.2% 28.5% 

Others threatened 14.8% 10.6% 6.4% 

Property damage 11.1% 13.8% 21.4% 

Property stolen 7.4% 3.1% 3.9% 

Suspect left scene 31.5% 31.2% 22.6% 

Victim reported to be afraid 54.6% 49.4% 13.3% 

Victim uncooperative 2.8% 6.9% 16.7% 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The comparisons are not exact, as the police and researcher identified cases are for 

unduplicated cases while the 2002 and 2004 general abuse cases may include multiple cases 

involving the same suspects in the two years. However, the comparisons clearly suggest that 

despite differences between the police and researcher identified stalkers, they both differ 

substantially from general abusers reported to police in most major respects. Specifically, the 

general abusers were slightly younger and less likely to be white. Although we did not access 

their prior criminal histories, the general abusers generated fewer calls to police for prior 

domestic violence than the study stalkers. General abusers were far less likely to have had 

protective orders taken out against them by their victims in the past or have active orders at the 

time of the reported abuse incident. This suggests the general abusers were either less abusive in 

the past, their victims were more tolerant of that abuse, or both. 

The victims of the general abusers were much more likely to be current intimates, living with 

their victims. Stalking victims were more likely to have called police than the general victims. 

Police were much more likely to record that stalking victims were “afraid,” notwithstanding the 

fact that they were less likely to have been physically attacked during the study incident than 

general abuse victims. Stalking victims were also much more likely to cooperate with police in 

signing and completing reports and statements. 

The general abuse incidents were much more likely to involve physical assaults and result in 

victim injuries. General abusers were less likely to have threatened their victims or others, but 

more likely to have damaged property. General abusers were also more likely to have remained 

on the scene when police arrived. While researcher identified stalkers were significantly more 

likely to have threatened their victims (56.2% vs. 44.4%), the general abusers were much less 

likely to threaten their victims (28.5%) than even the police identified stalkers. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
In a few instances, the general abuse case characteristics more closely resembled the 

researcher identified cases than the police identified cases. These include cases where both the 

researcher identified stalking and general abuse incidents occurred in a dwelling and/or indoors 

and where there were less likely to be witnesses than in police identified stalking cases. These 

similarities between general and researcher identified stalkers do not suggest that the researcher 

identified stalking suspect, victim, or incident characteristics differ from police identified 

stalking suspects, victim, and incident characteristics, but support our earlier discussion of why 

police may not have categorized researcher identified cases as stalking. 

Discussion 

The comparison of both police and researcher identified stalking cases with general domestic 

violence cases provides insights into how stalking cases differ from general abuse cases in regard 

to stalker relationships to their victims, prior stalker violence and abuse, reporting of stalking to 

police, and nature of stalking incidents. 

Stalker Relation to Victim 

While stalkers may begin stalking their partners while they are still living with them (see 

literature review), it is evident in this study that most victims do not report stalking to police until 

after the relationship is over and the parties are physically separated. This finding is similar to 

that found in a Colorado study that concluded that the variable most likely to predict that a police 

domestic violence incident report contained the elements required to be defined as stalking was 

whether the suspect was a former, rather than a current, partner (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2001). 

Prior Stalker Violence and Abuse 

While stalking incidents were unlikely to involve physical assaults, in contrast to general 

abuse cases where assaults occur as often as not, the majority of stalking victims reported prior 

assaults by their study stalkers. Police were also more likely to have previously responded to 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
stalkers’ households than in general abuse cases. This, combined with the much higher level of 

past protective orders obtained by stalking victims, all suggest that stalkers are as or more 

chronic and violent than general abusers. 

These findings are confirmed, in part, in the research. The Colorado stalking study 

documented that stalking victims were significantly more likely to have protective orders against 

their abusers than non-stalking abuse victims (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2001). As described in the 

literature review, others have also found that women reported more violence during their prior 

relationships with their stalkers than while they were being stalked (Brewster, 2003a, 214). 

Therefore, while stalking may not be violent per se, the same cannot be said of stalkers 

themselves. 

Calling Police 

Stalking victims may be more likely to call police because they feel more threatened or 

disturbed by their abusers than general abuse victims. Alternatively, the nature of stalking may 

be less noticeable to third parties who might otherwise call police. The Colorado stalking study 

also found that stalking victims were significantly more likely to call police than non-stalking 

abuse victims (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2001). It may also be that stalking victims, unlike general 

abuse victims, are at the “end of their ropes,” having made the decision to end their relationship 

with their abusers. 

Nature of Stalking Incident 

The threatening but non-violent nature of stalking incidents found in our research resembles 

that found in the Supplemental Victimization Survey (Baum et al., 2009). Only a minority of 

stalking activities reported in the SVS included physical attacks or property damage, while a 

much higher percent (43.2%) involved threats. This also accords with Tjaden and Thoennes’ 

(2001) findings in Colorado. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Our study and others suggest that stalking victims have good reason to take threats from their 

stalkers seriously. More than half of the police and researcher identified stalkers had been 

arrested for prior domestic violence. Half of the stalking victims reported prior physical attacks. 

And almost half of the suspect stalkers continued to stalk their victims in defiance of a court no 

contact or protective order. General abusers were explicitly and implicitly less threatening in 

almost all of these respects, although we did not access their prior criminal histories. However, 

two other studies of arrested abusers in Rhode Island suggest that their prior criminal histories 

for domestic violence are lower than those of the police and researcher identified stalkers (Klein 

et al., 1999; Klein et al., 2008). 

C. Does it make any difference if police identify a domestic violence 

case as stalking as opposed to any other domestic violence charges, 

such as assault or violation of a protective order? 

Yes, it makes a difference in both the short and long term. In the short term, police were 

significantly more likely to arrest abusers they cited for stalking than the researcher identified 

stalkers cited by police for other domestic violence offenses. Prosecutors were more likely to 

charge them in court and successfully prosecute them. Courts were more likely to sentence them. 

And in the longer run, police identified stalkers were less likely to be arrested for new domestic 

violence offenses. 

Police Response to Police and Researcher Identified Stalkers 

Although a small number of researcher identified stalking victims (6.9%, see Exhibit # 8) 

were less likely (than police identified stalking victims) to cooperate with police by signing and 

completing forms, otherwise the evidence obtained, suspects interviewed, and written statements 

given by victims were almost identical for both police and researcher identified victims. Yet, 

police were significantly more likely to arrest or issue warrants against police identified stalkers 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
than against researcher identified stalkers. The lower arrest/warrant rate for researcher identified 

stalkers was closer to that of the arrest and warrant rate for general abusers in 2002 and 2004, 

which was 73%. 

Exhibit # 12 contains a breakdown of the police responses to the study incident. In addition 

to likelihood of arrest, police were significantly more likely to also cite police identified stalkers 

for assault and researcher identified stalkers for phone threats. 

Exhibit # 12: Police Responses to Police and Researcher Identified Stalkers 

Variables 

Proportion of Police 

Identified Stalkers 

n=108 (population) 

Proportion of Researcher 

Identified Stalkers 

n=160 (sample) 

p Value 

Physical evidence obtained 16.7% 16.3% 1 

Suspect interviewed 13.0% 13.8% 0.73 

Witness interviewed 28.7% 26.9% 0.66 

Victim written statement 66.7% 64.4% 0.56 

Suspect arrested 63.% 53.% 0.017** 

Warrant issued 23.1% 21.9% 0.78 

Suspect arrested/warranted 86.1% 75.6% >.001 

Police cited assault 14.8% 8.75% 0.034* 

Police cited phone threat 21.3% 30.6% 0.007** 

Police cited order violation 33.3% 40.6% .054 

Police cite disorderly 11.2% 11.9% 0.8 

* p>.05, **p>.01, ***p>.001 

The fact that police identified stalkers were significantly more likely to be arrested than 

researcher identified stalkers is noteworthy because Rhode Island law mandates the arrest of 

domestic violence suspects in cases where victims sustain injuries (R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-29-3b 

(ii)), there is a felonious assault (i), “physical action” was taken “intending to cause fear of 

imminent serious bodily injury or death (ii),” or there was a violation of a civil protective order 

(iv) or a criminal no contact order (v). Rhode Island does not require the arrest of stalkers per se. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Charges Cited by Police 

While most of the researcher identified stalkers were cited by police for a single offense, 

three-quarters of the police identified stalkers were cited by police for stalking and another 

domestic violence offense. Most of the 2002 and 2004 general abusers, like researcher identified 

stalkers, were also cited for only one domestic violence offense (see Exhibit # 13). 

Exhibit # 13: Charges Cited By Police for Police and Researcher Identified Stalkers 

Charges 

Cited Against Police 

Identified Stalkers 

n=108 

Cited Against Researcher 

Identified Stalkers 

n=160 

Cited for Non- Stalking 

General Abusers 

2002 & 2004, n=13,216 

Stalking 108 0 0 

Violation of protective 

or no contact order 36 65 1,756 

Threatening phone call 23 49 488 

Assault 16 14 6,099 

Disorderly conduct 12 19 1,834 

Malicious property 

damage 7 10 1,397 

Refusal to relinquish 

phone 3 3 868 

Breaking & entering 4 5 259 

Sexual assault 1 0 296 

Other 0 4 632 

Total Charges 

Cited by Police 210 170 13,629 

In addition to stalking, the greatest number of police and researcher identified stalkers were 

cited for violation of orders (26.6%), followed by threatening phone calls (18.9%).25 By contrast, 

only 13.3% of the 2002 and 2004 abuse charges were for violating orders and only 3.7% for 

threatening phone calls. 

 

25 Rhode Island Gen. Laws § 11-35-17, Crank or obscene telephone calls: (a) Whoever shall telephone any person 

repeatedly or cause any person to be telephoned repeatedly for the sole purpose of harassing, annoying, or

molesting the other person or his or her family, whether or not conversation ensues; or shall telephone any person 

for the purpose of using any threatening, vulgar, indecent, obscene, or immoral language over the telephone, shall be 

guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by 

imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Prosecutor Response 

Prosecutors were significantly more likely to file charges against police identified stalkers. 

Prosecutors charged 69 police identified stalkers in court, 45 for stalking. Prosecutors charged 81 

researcher identified stalkers in court, 1 for stalking. The only researcher identified stalker 

charged by prosecutors with stalking had been cited by police for breaking and entering into a 

dwelling. He was arraigned in District Court for this and trespassing. However, after review by 

the Assistant Attorney General, he was charged in Superior Court with stalking. 

Exhibit # 14 lists prosecutor responses to both police and researcher identified stalking cases. 

Exhibit # 14: Prosecutor Responses to Police and Researcher Identified Cases 

Prosecutor Response 

Characteristics

Police Identified 

Stalking Cases 

Researcher Identified 

Stalking Cases p Value 

Charged in court 63.9% 50.6% >.001*** 

Charged stalking 41.7% 0.6% >.001*** 

Charged assault 13.0% 7.5% 0.02* 

Conviction obtained 41.7% 33.1% 0.017* 

* p>.05, **p>.01, ***p>.001 

The process for prosecuting those charged with stalking was different than for those charged 

with almost all other domestic violence offenses because stalking is a felony, whereas most other 

domestic violence charges cited by police were misdemeanors. Felony charges are prosecuted by 

different prosecutors than misdemeanor charges. Prosecution of misdemeanors in Rhode Island 

is conducted by city and town solicitors in District Court; prosecution of felonies is conducted by 

Assistant Attorneys General in Superior Court. To bring non-capital felony charges in Superior 

Court, a screening panel of Assistant Attorney Generals must review the cases after the 

defendants are arraigned in District Court and determine if they should be prosecuted for felonies 

in the Superior Court. Only capital felony charges have to be brought before a Grand Jury. 

Exhibit # 15 lists the charges filed against police identified stalkers in court by prosecutors. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The total number of charges exceeds the number of stalkers because multiple charges may have 

been filed for the same stalker and multiple counts for each charge may have been filed. 

Exhibit # 15: Police and Researcher Identified Stalker Court Charges 

Police Identified Stalkers Researcher Identified Stalkers 

Charge

Charges Counts Charges Counts 

Stalking 45 46 1 1 

Assault 14 15 12 12 

Violation of protective or 

no contact order 21 36 40 52 

Threatening phone call 12 17 27 27 

Refusal to relinquish 

phone 2 2 2 2 

Disorderly conduct 10 11 15 16 

Property damage 5 5 5 5 

Breaking & entering 4 4 3 3 

Other 8 10 11 11 

Total 121 146 115 129 

Court Outcomes 

Prosecutors were significantly more likely to obtain convictions against police identified 

stalkers, as previously illustrated in Exhibit # 14. Most of the convicted stalkers, police or 

researcher identified stalkers, were sentenced to probation. A little over 10% of the police 

identified stalkers and 8% of the researcher identified stalkers were sentenced to imprisonment. 

The average sentence for each was short of ten months. 

Although, as a felony, stalking carries with it a maximum imprisonment of five years, the 

longest sentence imposed against a police identified stalker was two years. Only three of the 

police identified stalker sentences of imprisonment exceeded the maximum time available for 

misdemeanor domestic violence offenses (up to one year). Four of the researcher identified 

stalkers were sentenced for felonies, although only two were given sentences of imprisonment 

that exceeded the maximum sentences for misdemeanors. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
In other words, in terms of the enhanced sentences available to those convicted of felonies, 

there was little actual difference between police and researcher identified stalker sentences. Only 

three police identified stalkers received sentences specifically available only to convicted felons, 

compared to two of the researcher identified stalkers. On the other hand, although the actual 

sentences imposed were similar (there is no difference between felony and misdemeanor 

probationary sentences), while almost all of the researcher identified stalkers were convicted for 

misdemeanor offenses, a third of the police identified stalkers were convicted of a felony 

(stalking) which carries with it more severe collateral repercussions in terms of firearm 

possession disabilities, as well as possible employment restrictions.

Exhibits # 17 and 18 chart the disposition of the police and researcher identified cases, 

broken down by those initially charged as stalking and those charged with other domestic 

violence offenses. As illustrated, 12 of the police identified stalkers were initially charged for 

stalking and other domestic violence offenses. The stalking charges were dismissed but the other 

concurrent domestic violence offenses were prosecuted. 

Exhibit # 17: Court Outcomes for Police Identified Stalkers 

Charged Court Outcome: Stalking Court Outcome: Other DV 

Stalking: 45  18 Convicted 

 13 Dismissed 

 2 Died/defaulted 

 12 Stalking charge was dismissed 

& other DV prosecuted

 10 Convicted 

 1 Dismissed 

 1 Defaulted

Other DV: 24  14 Convicted 

 9 Dismissed 

 1 Defaulted 

Total: 69 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Exhibit # 18: Court Outcomes for Researcher Identified Stalkers 

Charged in Court Court Outcome 

Charged: 81  53 Convicted 

 27 Dismissed 

 1 Defaulted 

Total: 81 

Re-arrests for New Domestic Violence 

Police identified stalkers were less likely to be arrested for new domestic violence offenses 

than researcher identified stalking, but the difference only approached statistical significance as 

illustrated in Exhibit # 19. Similarly, there was no significant difference in domestic violence rearrest rates for those study stalkers actually prosecuted for stalking and those prosecuted for 

other non-stalking domestic violence crimes. The re-arrest rate for the former was 48.6% and the 

latter 57.4% (p=.358). 

However, if the comparison between police and researcher identified stalkers is limited to 

lower risk stalkers, those with no prior criminal charges or no prior domestic violence charges, 

the police identified stalkers were significantly less likely to be arrested for new domestic 

violence through July 16, 2008. 

Exhibit # 19: Researcher and Police Identified Stalking Reabuse Rates 

Re-Arrest of Suspect Police Identified Stalkers Researcher Identified Stalkers p Value 

New DV offense 47.2% 52.5% 0.10 

New DV for suspects 

without priors 

(n=72) 

25.0% 38.6% .032* 

New DV for suspects 

without prior DVs 

(n=124) 

38.6% 48.75% .041* 

* p>.05, **p>.01, ***p>.001 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
To make sure the differences in arrest rates found between police and researcher identified 

stalkers were not a result of differences in lengths of follow up between the two groups, we also 

compared the average exposure each group had to be re-arrested. There was no significant 

difference between police and researcher identified stalkers in terms of follow up. The average 

length for the former was 1,892.4 days and for the latter was 1,896.6 days (p=.95). 

New Charges for Rearrested 

The new offenses charged against the study stalkers who were rearrested are listed in Exhibit 

# 20. The average study stalker who was arrested for new domestic violence offenses through 

July 16, 2008 was charged in court with three counts (2.9) of two new charges (1.9) each. 

Exhibit # 20: New Offenses Filed Against 140 Police and Researcher Identified Stalkers 

Offense New Domestic Violence 

Offenses Charged Counts of New Offenses 

Stalking 17 22 

Assault 61 90 

Violation of protective 

or no contact order 91 180 

Threatening phone call 37 43 

Refusal to relinquish 

phone 13 15 

Disorderly conduct 21 23 

Vandalism 28 32 

Breaking & entering 5 5 

Total 273 410 

The police identified stalkers were significantly more likely to be rearrested specifically for 

stalking than the researcher identified stalkers (13% compared to 1.9%) (p=.001). The numbers 

are small and probably indicate that once an abuser has already been identified as a stalker by 

police, he is more likely to be recharged as a stalker because stalking, by definition, is a 

repeating enterprise or course of conduct. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Variables Associated with Reabuse 

To determine whether suspect, victim, or incident variables other than police identification of 

stalking were more powerfully associated with the likelihood of arrests for new domestic 

violence, we completed bivariate tests of each of the suspect, victim, and incident characteristics 

and domestic violence re-arrests. The tests reveal only limited differences between those stalkers 

who were rearrested for domestic violence and those not. No victim or incident variables 

significantly differed between those arrested for new domestic violence and those not. 

Significant differences were limited to the prior criminal histories of the stalkers as illustrated in 

the Exhibit # 21.26

Exhibit # 21: Variables Associated with Stalker Reabuse 

Variable New DV Arrest 

n=140 

No New DV arrest 

n=128 p Value 

Prior offenses 82.9% 62.5% p<.001 

Prior DV 60% 46.9% p=.042 

Prior alcohol/drug 32.1% 18.0% p=.012 

Prior probation 70.7% 48.4% p<.001 

Prior prison 30.0% 14.8% P=.005 

Therefore, by eliminating prior criminal history in the comparison of police and researcher 

identified cases, the research suggests that the police identification of the case as stalking is 

associated with the lower reabuse rate, controlling for the many suspect, victim, incident, and 

police response variables considered. 

Discussion 

Our hypothesis that police identification of stalking cases matters appears to be correct, but 

our rationale that it matters “if for no other reason than that stalking is a felony in Rhode Island” 

 

26 Two other variables approached statistical significance. Younger stalkers were more likely to be rearrested than 

older (p=.077). The mean age of those rearrested was 33 years and non-arrestees was 35.4 years. Additionally, 

stalkers who left the scene before police arrived were more likely to be rearrested. A third of stalkers (36.4%) who 

left the scene were arrested compared to only a quarter (25.8%) who did not leave the scene (p=.08). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
proved less certain. Ultimately, the vast majority of both police and researcher identified stalkers 

who were convicted were sentenced to probation with the same mandatory terms: completion of 

a batterer program mandated by statute. Only three of the police identified stalkers received, 

terms of imprisonment longer than what the researcher identified stalkers who were imprisoned 

as misdemeanors received but two of the researcher identified stalkers were also sentenced as 

felons to longer terms than those available to misdemeanants. 

Nonetheless, despite the fact that the dispositions of police identified stalkers were not 

substantially more severe than those imposed against the researcher identified stalkers in general, 

it appears that the increased likelihood of being arrested, charged, and convicted in court were 

sufficient to deter at least lower risk stalkers, those without prior criminal histories or criminal 

histories for domestic violence. To the extent that police were encouraged to arrest and 

prosecutors to prosecute stalkers because the crime was a felony, our hypothesis is supported. 

However, the research does not support what is implicit in our hypothesis: that the increased 

sanctions felony charges carry with them would either incapacitate or, more likely, deter stalkers 

than the sanctions available to stalkers not so identified by police. Further, as will be described 

below in our qualitative findings, police may have been deterred from citing stalking because it 

is a felony. 

Other research suggests that arrest and/or prosecution alone may deter abusers with lesser 

criminal histories (see, e.g., Maxwell et al., 2001; Murphy et al., 1998; Garner & Maxwell, 

2008). Similarly, a prior evaluation of Rhode Island’s specialized probation supervision program 

for domestic violence offenders found that the specialized probation supervision program was 

significantly associated with reduced re-arrests for domestic violence over one year, but only for 

lower risk offenders (Klein et al., 1999). The reason for the lack of impact for higher risk 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
abusers, according to researchers, was that those abusers who reabused did so quickly, a large 

proportion before their first scheduled visit with their probation officer. The same may hold true 

for the criminal justice response to stalking. The median time for police identified stalkers to 

reabuse was 117 days. The median time for their study case to be resolved was longer, 144 days, 

almost a month later. In other words, the potential deterrent effect of the sentence for stalking 

came into play too late to prevent domestic violence re-arrests for at least half of the recidivist 

stalkers. If the defendants had been held pending trial and sentencing, there may have been 

significantly fewer re-arrests for domestic violence, or such arrests may have simply been 

delayed. 

If Rhode Island prosecutors and courts had sentenced the police identified stalkers with the 

enhanced sanctions available for felons, the deterrent, and certainly incapacitation, effects might 

have extended to those stalkers with prior criminal histories. Several studies suggest that the 

intrusiveness of the sentence matters (Ventura & Davis, 2004; Thistlewaite et al., 1998; Harrell 

et al., 2009; Garner & Maxwell, 2009). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
IV. Qualitative Methods 

After completing content analysis of police narratives and the quantitative study, researchers 

held a series of interviews with homogeneous groups of key informants in the fall of 2008. The 

purpose of this small, exploratory component of the study was to deepen our understanding of 

quantitative findings and their implications for policy and practice through collecting the varying 

perspectives of individuals involved in the day-to-day work of responding to stalking cases in 

Rhode Island. A total of 17 individuals participated in the meetings, representing a variety of 

perspectives, including personnel from four of the larger police departments in Rhode Island 

(Providence, Pawtucket, Warwick, and Cranston; n=7); the Office of the Attorney General and 

its special Domestic Violence Unit (n=3); a former public defender involved in the 

representation of stalking defendants (n=1); and a selection of domestic violence advocates 

involved in providing direct services in the courts, training police departments, supervising 

counseling staff, and advocating for statewide policy change (n=6). Sampling for these meetings 

was opportunistic and based on identification of departments and individuals who had experience 

with stalking cases and the criminal justice system response to them. 

An experienced qualitative researcher and assistant attended each meeting, which lasted 

approximately one to two hours. The meetings were structured using an open-ended protocol 

with questions organized by type of respondent (see Appendix B for a copy of the protocol). 

Questions were framed largely around quantitative results, asking respondents to help 

researchers explore the reasons behind key findings. Respondents were asked to review and sign 

an informed consent document to participate, which reviewed the purpose of the research, the 

voluntary nature of participation, as well as confidentiality procedures. Respondents were asked 

to protect the confidentiality of participants and to keep the perspectives expressed during the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
meeting confidential. While these procedures do not ensure that participants feel free to talk, we 

found vigorous discussion and full participation in all three group meetings. 

Meeting notes were transcribed and analyzed for themes, including areas where researchers 

found consensus as well as unique perspectives expressed by individuals and groups. The first 

level of analysis was to code the transcripts for themes arising from the data themselves, an 

approach that helps to open researchers to ideas outside the original study conceptualization or at 

odds with quantitative findings. The second level of analysis was to group themes by issue areas 

of interest to the study. 

The qualitative portion of the study is limited by the small sample of respondents and the 

opportunistic sampling design. Findings generated here are not intended to be generalizable, but 

rather help to provide insight into the meaning of the quantitative findings. Researchers, 

however, found that the qualitative findings were internally consistent with the quantitative 

findings, as elaborated below. 

A. Themes from Qualitative Interviews 

Confirming quantitative study findings, respondents generally agreed that charging under the 

stalking statute is rare in Rhode Island, and prosecution for stalking even rarer. Ironically, 

respondents were actually surprised to learn that police had collectively charged 108 abusers 

with stalking during the study period. While respondents provided a range of reasons for the 

limited use of the stalking statue, we found underlying agreement that identifying and building 

stalking cases have unique challenges. These challenges are outlined below. Chapter VI 

incorporates a final group of recommendations from the respondents for increased utilization of 

the state stalking statute. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
 Building a case based on a pattern of behavior can be far more difficult than building a 

case for one illegal act. We found considerable consensus on this point. Respondents 

highlighted that building a stalking case is extremely time-consuming for both the police and 

the victim. These are very complex and intensive cases; in one department, for example, an 

officer reported spending the entire summer working on two stalking cases. Victims need 

considerable instruction to adequately document the crime as well as lots of “hand holding” 

to get through the process. Officers need time to build strong documentation. According to 

one officer, in most domestic cases, an arrest is made on the spot. In stalking cases, the 

behavior is non-criminal in nature and the perpetrator is clever enough to evade detection. In 

general, we found agreement that, as one respondent stated, “these cases are a nightmare.” 

 Unique circumstances in Rhode Island make the challenge of documenting a pattern of 

behavior even more difficult. According to one police detective, the small size of the state 

makes it more likely that repeated behaviors may occur in different, non-overlapping police 

jurisdictions. A woman may shop in one jurisdiction, go to a health club in a second, and 

frequent a restaurant in a third—with a repeated stalking incident happening at each location. 

Since, reportedly, there is limited systematic sharing of information across jurisdictions, 

documenting this pattern of behavior is viewed as quite difficult. The case study highlighted 

in Exhibit # 9 above illustrates this point. In addition, we heard from multiple respondents 

that police and advocates in Rhode Island are reluctant to use a prior conviction as part of the 

documentation of repeated behaviors, since they assert that some judges consider its use to 

constitute impermissible “double jeopardy.” 

 Attitudes about the victim — their level of fear and reliability — can have a negative 

impact on police identifying a case as stalking. Some respondents found the stalking 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
statute itself ambiguous on the level of fear it requires. One police officer pointed out that 

different people have different reactions to the types of acts likely to be part of the pattern of 

conduct defined as stalking. Further, he stated that it was easier to “sympathize” with victims 

of more clear-cut “fear-raising” crimes, like armed robbery. Another officer commented that 

the way a victim presents herself, especially the degree to which she appears fearful rather 

than simply annoyed, can impact the use of the charge. In addition, respondents confirmed 

the quantitative study finding that police are more likely to charge stalking when there is a 

witness. They contend that the apparent need for a witness suggests that some police may not 

only fail to sympathize with victims but do not trust their reliability either. 

 Proving stalking within the context of domestic violence can be particularly challenging.

Requirements to document, for example, that the perpetrator’s pattern of behavior is not 

based on some legitimate purpose (i.e., to see the children, share the car, etc.) but is explicitly 

stalking, are often difficult to meet — especially given that perpetrators are reportedly “very 

clever” about where and how they interact with the victim. Furthermore, respondents claim 

that judges are reluctant to consider behavior as stalking if there appears to be a legitimate 

reason for the contact, even if it generates fear in the victim. 

 The limited use of the stalking statue is an unintended consequence of the State 

Legislature’s elevation of stalking to a felony offense. We found considerable consensus 

that making stalking a felony negatively impacts its use for a variety of reasons. A repeated 

concern was that stalking cases had to go through review by the Attorney General’s felony 

screening panel. Respondents reported that stalking cases were more likely than not to be 

rejected for prosecution by the panel.27One police officer who had attempted to bring 

 

27 Respondents were correct; only 46% of the arrested police identified stalkers brought to the panel were charged in 

court for stalking. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
forward a number of stalking charges said that she became discouraged after the panel 

repeatedly “kicked back” her cases, so she turned to other remedies that were quicker a

easier. Another respondent reported the need to figure out how to work around the panel, 

going directly to a special Assistant Attorney General in that Office’s Domestic Violence 

Unit to get a case heard. Respondents noted that the difficulty in getting through the pan

was related to a number of issues, including a mismatch between the needed rigor of buildin

a felony case for stalking and a police officer’s limited time, resources, and capacity to do so

In addition, respondents pointed out that the “gatekeeper” role of the panel, limiting the 

numbers of cases that are accepted for prosecution, as well as the need for training on 

stalking for the felony panel members and police contribute to the problem. The extended 

time it takes for a felony to go through the courts, and the impact of having a defense 

attorney more likely to demand a trial, were also noted as related reasons for not using the 

charge. 

nd 

el 

g 

. 

 The intensive nature of these cases, and the difficulty in “making them stick,” means 

that police are more likely to use other remedies — especially protective order violation 

charges — which they claim produce results more easily. Stalking cases take considerable 

time to build, even for departments with dedicated domestic violence units and advocates on 

site. For departments without these resources, the difficulty and time-consuming nature of 

these cases reportedly make officers less likely to cite stalking. Consequently, if there is a 

violation of a protective or no contact order, for example, police will more likely go with that 

rather than pursue the stalking charge. We found uniform consensus by police respondents 

that it is easier to get immediate results from a restraining order violation charge than by 

moving forward with a stalking charge. According to one, if you arrest for violating a 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
restraining order up front, you may actually stop the repetitive behavior in the future. In 

addition, a number of respondents indicated that Rhode Island’s enhancement statute that 

makes the third domestic violence offense a felony is easier to use than the stalking charge.28

 Respondents confirmed that the vast majority of stalking incidents in Rhode Island 

happen within the context of domestic violence; nevertheless, stranger stalking is taken 

more seriously. 29 While research suggests that the group of stalkers most likely to be 

violent are intimate partner stalkers (see Literature Review), respondents reported a g

perception that stranger stalking is more irrational, and, for that reason, is taken more 

seriously by judges and others, including the media. Attitudes about victims and relationships 

impact perceptions about the seriousness of stalking. Some respondents reported that police 

and judges may reframe intimate partner stalking as the perpetrator having difficulty letting 

go of the relationship—without the recognition of his history of controlling and dangerous 

behavior and the fear it generates in the victim. In the case of stranger stalking, on the other 

hand, it is difficult to conceive of any rational reason for stalking and the potential for 

violence seems more apparent.

eneral 

 

 Stalkers were viewed as qualitatively different than other domestic abusers. On the other 

hand, respondents generally agreed that stalkers, the relatively few stalkers that were 

identified, were viewed as potentially quite dangerous. They were described as more 

calculating and less reactive than the typical domestic abuse perpetrator. Respondents 

characterized them as compulsive and not willing to give up, and in some instance as 

seriously mentally ill. 

28 However, we in fact found very few stalkers with two prior domestic violence convictions actually charged as a 

third offender pursuant to the state’s enhancement statute. 

29 It appears Rhode Island respondents may reflect transcontinental perceptions. Sheridan and Davies (2001) find 

that stranger stalkers are more likely to be convicted of stalking offenses than intimate stalkers in a study conducted 

in the United Kingdom. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
 Stalking victims differ in their understanding about the crime of stalking and the 

remedy offered by the statute. Advocates report that some victims do not recognize their 

abusive situation as stalking. This may relate to a victim’s limited awareness about the crime 

of stalking, as well as the impact that prolonged abuse may have on her understanding of her 

own victimization. For those aware of the stalking statute, many victims are also concerned 

about the time it takes to prosecute a stalking case and want a “quicker fix” and more 

immediate safety. On the other hand, we also heard that victims who decide to move forward 

with a stalking case are often at “the end of their rope” and have given up on other 

approaches to stop the stalking. With support and instruction, stalking victims can be key 

allies in compiling the evidence necessary to document a pattern of behavior. Analysis of the 

police incident reports confirms that only a small minority of victims, however, appear to fit 

the latter category. Most do not recognize their abuse as stalking or, at least, do not use that 

term in identifying their abuse to police. 

 While researchers found significant agreement on why the stalking statute was rarely 

used, respondents reported a range of characteristics for those cases where they would 

be more likely to charge stalking. These included having a witness to the pattern of 

behavior, being able to gather significant levels of documentation (other than the complaint 

of the victim alone), having no other crime involved, having an articulate victim, and 

listening carefully to the victim’s level of fear — moving forward in cases where it is 

extreme. According to one respondent, “we want to see repeated bad behavior. The best 

cases for us are the worst cases for the victims.” These observations are born out by our 

analysis of the police narratives described earlier. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
VI. Conclusions and Implications 

Based on the specific findings elucidated earlier, we conclude that unlike the more 

pessimistic assessments made by Hall (1997) or Brewster (2003) of the criminal justice response 

to stalking, in Rhode Island, at least, police identification of stalking significantly increases the 

likelihood that these chronic and dangerous abusers will be held more accountable and a 

significant percent of victims will be protected form their further abuser. Police identification of 

stalkers was significantly associated with increased likelihood of arrest and court prosecution, 

compared to equivalent stalkers identified by police for non-stalking domestic violence offenses. 

Further, police identified stalkers without prior criminal histories or criminal abuse histories 

were significantly less likely to be charged with new domestic violence up to six years after 

police intervention. 

The criminal justice response to stalking, however, is compromised by under identification 

by law enforcement, compounded by charge reduction and case dismissals by prosecutors. Both 

the quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that police, prosecutors, and judges fail to 

appreciate the true nature of intimate stalkers, falsely believing, for example, that they are less 

dangerous than stranger stalkers or those abusers arrested for physical assaults. Further, 

discounting of victim self reports of prior assaults and current stalking, or fear that victims will 

not be believed without corroborating witnesses, appear to discourage police from citing stalking 

even if the reported activities are identical to cases where they do cite stalking in other 

circumstances. 

If police decided stalking charges based solely on incident differences, one would expect the 

researcher identified stalkers to be more likely charged as stalkers than the police identified 

stalkers. Researcher identified stalking victims were more likely to report threats, as well as prior 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
assaults. Based on these significant differences alone, it would appear that these cases more 

readily meet the legal standards of stalking which requires victims to be in fear or a reasonable 

person to be in fear.

Instead, as the police respondents suggested, they are more comfortable in defining a case as 

stalking if the disparate incidents were all connected by an underlying behavioral obsession or 

irrational conduct more clearly perceived in stranger stalking than intimate and family stalking 

cases. The problem with intimate stalking, they suggested, was that the stalking behavior could 

be explained rationally — the need to see the children, retrieve the car, or deal with other family 

matters — even if the conduct was in violation of a protective or no contact order at the time. 

They also pointed out that the stalkers were often very smart and manipulative, complicating 

efforts to hold them accountable for their behavior. 

The Rhode Island legislature’s amendment in 2001 making stalking a felony may have had 

the unintended consequence of discouraging its use. Although we have no data on utilization of 

the stalking statute when it was a misdemeanor, respondents suggested that, being a felony, 

stalking cases need more proof than misdemeanor cases. While legally this is not true (the 

standard of evidence is the same), one of the consequences of making stalking a felony is the 

involvement of mandatory screening by a panel of Assistant Attorney General prosecutors. 

These prosecutors may not have the same training and appreciation of domestic violence as the 

specially trained Assistant Attorneys General who actually prosecute the stalking cases once they 

get by the screening panel. 

The under-identification of stalking appears to compromise the safety of victims, subjecting 

many of them to an increased likelihood of reabuse. Further, as opposed to the perceptions of 

police and others that intimate stalkers are non-violent abusers, this study suggests them to be 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
violent, chronic abusers. Although the course of conduct that made up the stalking reported to 

Rhode Island rarely involved physical abuse, victims reported substantial prior physical abuse by 

stalkers and those stalkers who were rearrested for domestic violence after the study stalking 

incident engaged in substantial physical abuse. Almost half (43.6%) of the reabuse offenses 

committed by the study stalkers through July 2006 were arrested for assaults. Two-thirds (65%) 

were arrested for violations of protective orders, indicating the persistence of these stalkers and 

limitations of victim counter measures, including obtaining protective orders against their 

stalkers. 

The current study suggests that the failure to identify, arrest, and prosecute stalkers as 

stalkers disarms the criminal justice system when it needs as many weapons in its arsenal as 

possible to confront some of the most chronic, threatening, violent, criminal, and persistent 

abusers. 

The implications of our research are unambiguous. Police should receive the training, 

supervision, and resources necessary to accurately identify stalking cases and to gather the 

evidence necessary for their prosecution. Prosecutors should encourage police efforts by 

prosecuting identified stalkers for stalking, if possible. Upon conviction, courts should sentence 

those stalkers with prior criminal histories more severely than they do typical misdemeanor 

domestic violence offenders or stalkers with no prior criminal history or criminal history for 

domestic violence. Even before conviction, stalkers with prior criminal histories or criminal 

histories for domestic violence should be tightly supervised or incarcerated. Exhibit # 22, 

although an extreme case featuring a police identified stalker who had the most (8) subsequent 

domestic violence charges, illustrates how the courts have difficulty keeping up with the most 

65
chronic stalkers. It also suggests why stalking victims may be cumulatively traumatized by what 

may appear, in isolation, to be trivial, individual violations. 

Exhibit # 22: Subsequent Domestic Violence Charges: Case History

The defendant was a white 29-year-old male; the victim, an ex-intimate partner, no longer 

living with the defendant. She was also white. There were no children. She had never taken out a 

protective order against him, and reported that he had not assaulted her in the past, although 

police had responded to a prior domestic call involving the parties. She called police for the 

study incident; he was not at the scene when police arrived, although they arrested him that same 

day for stalking. She provided police with a written report of the incident and was noted by 

police to be upset. 

Study offense: On October 5, 2001, the defendant was charged in court with his first offense, 

domestic disorderly, although police had initially cited him for stalking. The month after his case 

was filed in court, he did not contest the charges, and a guilty finding was entered with an order 

of attendance at a batterer intervention program monitored by a court contracted agency. 

1st subsequent offense: On June 24, 2002, seven months later, the defendant was charged 

with violating a civil protection order. The next month, on July 18, 2002, he was sentenced to 

one year suspended sentence and ordered to complete the batterer program again. Before that 

disposition, however, he was re-arrested. 

2nd subsequent offense: On July 10, two weeks later than the first subsequent re-arrest, he 

was charged with two counts of violation of a no contact order imposed after his previous June 

arrest. This case was disposed of the same day as the prior 1st subsequent offense case, July 18, 

2002. He was given a ten month suspended sentence and sixty days deferred sentence. 

3rd and 4th subsequent offenses: Two months after his concurrent sentences for his two prior 

cases, he was charged with felony stalking and violation of a no contact order on September 19, 

2002, in a case brought to prosecutors by state police. At the same time, he was charged with 

felony stalking, refusing to relinquish the phone, and violation of a no contact order brought by 

local police. 

As a result of these new sets of charges, the defendant’s prior two sentences, 1st and 2nd

subsequent offenses, were revoked and he was sentenced on a probation violation to 60 days in 

prison concurrent. 

As for the new cases, the case that was investigated by the state police was resolved first. On 

November 1, 2002, the Office of the Attorney General, which handles all felony cases, indicted 

the defendant, and charged him in Superior Court. The case investigated by local police was not 

charged by the Office of the Attorney General until January 24, 2003. However, both sets of 

charges were disposed of on June 18, 2003 in Superior Court. All of the state police originated 

cases were dismissed. In addition, the stalking charge brought by local police was dismissed. On 

the violation of no contact order, he was sentenced to one year suspended and on the refusal to 

relinquish the phone he was sentenced to 90 days suspended. 

66
5th subsequent offense: On June 18, 2004, a year later, the defendant was charged with 

violation of a no contact order. That charge was dismissed by prosecutors on June 25, 2004, but 

on the same day, the defendant was charged with a new offense. 

6th subsequent offense: On June 25, 2004, the defendant was charged with violation of a 

protective order. The case was charged as a felony by the Office of the Attorney General on 

August 16, 2004. Almost a year later, on May 27, 2005, the defendant was sentenced to five 

years, two years in prison and three years suspended. He was ordered into the batterer program 

again and ordered to have mental health counseling. 

7th subsequent offense: While the 6th case was pending, the defendant was charged on July 

13, 2004 with violation of a protection order, committing an offense while on release, and 

threatening phone calls. He was indicted on these charges at the same time the Office of the 

Attorney General indicted him on the prior charge, August 16, 2004. These charges were 

resolved at the same time as the 6th set of subsequent charges, May 27, 2005. On the violation of 

a protection order, he was given five years, a two committed and balanced suspended concurrent 

with the prior sentence. He was given a year suspended on the threatening phone calls and the 

offense committed while on release was dismissed by prosecutors. 

8th subsequent offense: While the 6th and 7th sets of cases were pending, the defendant was 

charged on May 2, 2005 with stalking, threatening phone calls, and committing an offense while 

on release. He waived indictment and was sentenced two days later along with the 6th and 7th sets 

of cases on May 27, 2005. The threatening phone calls and committing an offense while on 

release were both dismissed by prosecutors. On the stalking case, he was given a five year term, 

two committed and balance suspended concurrent was the 6th and 7th sentenced. Under state law, 

he must serve 1/3rd of his sentence before he can be paroled. 

Both police and prosecutors need to be disabused of the notion that stalking is a less serious 

crime than other domestic violence crimes, including assaults. Based on this research, it appears 

that stalkers reported to police are, in fact, chronic, violent abusers. 

A. Recommendations of Respondents 

Qualitative study respondents offered the following approaches to improving the utilization 

of the stalking statute in Rhode Island. 

 Training and/or technical assistance is needed with multiple audiences, at greater 

frequency, in order to overcome barriers to using the statute. We found uniform 

agreement that training specific to stalking happens infrequently, with most police 

respondents reporting that they had not participated in trainings on the topic for many years, 

67
if at all. We also heard that when trainings have included sections on stalking, they were 

considered to “gloss” over the topic and not provide sufficient depth to impact practice. 

Trainings that do exist are also not targeted to a sufficiently broad representation of officers. 

Stalking cases are considered very complex and sophisticated. Training and/or technical 

assistance are needed to: improve the level of “homework” police now do, improve strategies 

for information gathering — including asking the right questions to victims, and develop 

strategies to overcome jurisdictional issues. Educating Assistant Attorneys General, who 

make up the felony screening panel, and judges was also seen as key to increasing 

understanding and use of the statute. 

 Police would benefit from a problem solving approach with the Attorney General’s 

office to build more adequate stalking cases. The current system does not provide for 

consultation when cases are “kicked back” from the panel. Some respondents thought that 

increased communication, and potentially cross training between the panel and the 

investigating officer, would improve the strength of the case and the overall understanding of 

what each system needs. 

 Police respondents were uniformly unaware of any departmental policies and 

procedures specific to stalking. This lack of awareness, and potentially lack of policies 

themselves, contribute to an unsystematic approach to working with these cases. Specific 

officers, especially in specialized domestic violence units, have developed their own 

approaches to interviewing victims and gathering documentation. However, this appeared to 

be the exception rather than the rule. 

 The interpretation of what constitutes double jeopardy in stalking cases needs 

clarification. Advocates and others say the place to start is by understanding how other 

68
states are interpreting double jeopardy in relationship to stalking. Specifically, it would be 

important for Rhode Island judges, advocates, and investigators to understand whether other 

states consider past convictions as inadmissible in stalking cases and, if so, how they are 

building the case for a pattern of repeated behaviors. 

 Better interdepartmental communication and information sharing, through statewide 

integrated computer systems or databases, would help in documenting patterns of 

behavior across jurisdictions. A first step would be to improve access within departments 

to the statewide Domestic Violence/Sexual Abuse report form database. These forms provide 

critical information on all domestic crimes, including stalking. If police were able to access 

these data, they would have considerable preliminary information on a perpetrator’s stalking 

history and a ready “red flag” that a domestic case may include stalking. Respondents also 

agreed that building an integrated statewide information system accessible to all departments 

would be an important longer term solution. 

 The “one size fits all” batterer intervention programs do not work for stalkers. The 

system needs to develop a more tailored intervention for stalkers. Advocates reported a 

disconnect between the current system of standard 26 week batterer intervention programs 

and the characteristics of people who stalk. This is especially problematic in addressing 

mental health and substance abuse issues. 

 Police departments need dedicated investigators to handle stalking cases. Because of the 

time and complexity of stalking cases, they are likely to “fly under the radar” unless there is 

dedicated staff to handle them. 

Advocates suggested an array of other reforms. They recommended making three violations 

of no contact orders an automatic stalking charge; creating a statewide domestic violence court, 

69
with more experienced judges, prosecutors, and defenders, as well as larger numbers of 

advocates assigned; developing systems to “red flag” perpetrators across jurisdictions, including 

dedicated stalking logs; and assessing cases for danger and lethality that would help encourage 

the filing of stalking charges. 

B. Study Limitations 

First, it must be understood what this research is not. It is not a study of stalking in Rhode 

Island. It tells us nothing about prevalence of stalking across that state during the study period. It 

does describe stalking reported to police which police identify as stalking in some cases, and 

other cases identified by researchers as stalking. Second, it is not a study of stalker recidivism for 

new domestic violence. It does not tell us how likely stalkers are to continue their criminal abuse. 

It does describe arrests for domestic violence committed by police and researcher identified 

stalkers. Because the study is concerned about the impact of police identification of stalking, this 

limited measure of reabuse as arrests for domestic violence still allowed researchers to compare 

consistent outcomes between police and researcher identified stalkers, but it does not reveal the 

extent of reabuse that these stalkers may have perpetrated. 

Study findings may be limited due to the single state focus of this research. Although there is 

no reason to believe that stalkers are substantially different based on geography, certainly the 

criminal justice response varies widely from state to state. In addition, because so few stalkers 

are cited by police in most states, as well as Rhode Island, a change in police behavior may 

produce dramatic changes in identified stalkers, their victims, stalking incidents, and how the 

state responds to identified stalking cases. As a result, the specific findings of this study may 

alter dramatically based on relatively minor changes in police or prosecutor behavior. 

Further, this study is confined to stalking cases identified as domestic violence stalking, 

namely between intimates or family members, and where the victim is a female. According to 

70
the Supplemental Victimization Survey (Baum et al., 2009), this precludes approximately 45% 

of stalking cases involving strangers (9.7%); acquaintances (19.7%); and friends, neighbors, and 

roommates (16.4%). In regard to the latter, however, “roommates” specifically would be 

included in the Rhode Island domestic violence data as “cohabitants.” 

Although there are variations in state laws, Rhode Island’s stalking statute is fairly 

representative. A broader discussion of the variation in state stalking laws is contained in 

Appendix D. As a result, we suspect, given the similarity in state stalking statutes and similar 

low levels of stalking arrests across the nation, the findings of the current Rhode Island study, on 

the heels of the Colorado stalking (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2001), may have wider implications. 

While the police identified stalkers represented the complete population of stalkers so 

identified by police between 2001 and 2005, inclusive, the researcher identified stalkers were a 

sample drawn from these years. Although this group should be representative of that population, 

it remains only a sample. Because cases were reviewed beginning chronologically January 1 or 

April 1, they do not match the month-to-month distribution of police identified stalking cases, 

although there is no evidence to suggest stalkers differ based on the month incidents are reported 

to police. 

While the research does not suggest that stalkers vary by region or state, the criminal justice 

response to domestic violence does. The impact of police and prosecutor identification and 

prosecution of stalking in Rhode Island may not be representative of that in other states. 

However, the criminal justice response to stalking probably varies in terms of level of 

significance, not direction of significance. 

The significance of police identification of stalking may have more to do with the fact that 

stalking is a felony in Rhode Island than with the difference between stalking cases and general 

71
domestic violence offenses. The question remains: where states define stalking as a misdemeanor 

only, would its identification by police make any difference? More research is required in 

different jurisdictions to determine how applicable the Rhode Island findings are outside that 

state. However, the fact remains that stalking case characteristics, including suspect, victim, and 

incident characteristics, were very different from those found in general abuse cases. 

While police identification of stalking was associated with increased arrests and prosecution, 

it was not associated with any difference in dispositional outcomes. Perhaps if Rhode Island 

judges had imposed more significant sentences for stalking, permissible under state law, the 

police identification of stalking would also have been associated with reduced re-arrests for all 

stalkers, not just those without prior criminal histories or criminal domestic violence offenses. 

However, until prosecutors and judges provide for more intrusive dispositional outcomes for 

stalkers, that will remain to be seen. 

72
References 

Barry, C.A. (1998). Choosing Qualitative Data Analysis Software: Atlas/ti and Nudist 

Compared. Sociological Research Online, 3, no. 3. Retrieved on May 18, 2006 from 

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/3/3/4.html. 

Basile, K., Swahn, M., Chen, J., & Saltzman, L. (2003). Stalking in the United States, Recent 

National Prevalence Estimates. American Journal of Medicine 31 (2), 172-175. 

Baum, K., Catalano, S. & Rand, M. (2009). Stalking Victimization in the United States.

Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 224527. 

Beatty, D. (2003). Stalking Legislation in the United States. In M Brewster (ed). Stalking, 

Psychological, Risk Factors, Interventions, and the Law. Kingston, NJ: Civil Research 

Institute, 2.1-2.25. 

Blaauw, E., Winkel, F., Arensman, E., Sheridan, L. & Freeve, A. (2002). The toll of stalking: 

The relationship between features of stalking and psychopathology of victims. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 17 (1), 50-63. 

Brewster, M. (1998). An exploration of the experiences and needs of former intimate stalking 

victims. Washington DC: Report to National Institute of Justice. 

Brewster, M. (2001). Legal help-seeking experiences of former intimate partner stalking victims, 

Criminal Justice Policy Review 12 (2), 91-112. 

Brewster, M. (2003a). Power and Control Dynamics in Prestalking and Stalking Situations, 

Journal of Family Violence, 18 (4), 207-217; 

Brewster, M. (2000). Stalking by Former Intimates: Verbal Threats and Other Predictors of 

Physical Violence, Violence and Victims, 15, 41.

Brewster, M. (Ed.). (2003b). Stalking: Psychology, risk factors, interventions, and law. Kingston, 

NJ: Civic Research Institute. 

Burt, D., Cropper, C., Hankins, M., Johnston, H., Lyons, C., Paziotopoulos, P., Rebovich, D., 

Saler, S., Sherwood, C., Stevens, N., & Weinstein, S. (1997). Stalking: Prosecutors Convict 

and Restrict, Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute. 

Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a 

Pro-Active Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJCX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427. 

Caperona, B. (2007). Domestic Violence in New Mexico, 2006 Highlights. Albuquerque, NM: 

State of New Mexico, Department of Health, Office of Injury Prevention. 

Catalano, S. (2006). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States. Washington DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Easteal, P. (1994). Homicide Between Adult Sexual Intimates in Australia: Implications for 

Prevention, Studies on Crime, Crime Prevention, 3, 24-40. 

Fein, R., B. Vossekuil, and G. Holden (1995). Threat Assessment: An Approach to Prevent 

Targeted Violence. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice. 

73
Fisher, B., Cullen, F., and Turner, M. (December 2000). The Sexual Victimization of College 

Women, Washington DC: National Institute of Justice/ Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Garner, J. & Maxwell, C. (2008). The Crime Control Effects of Prosecuting Intimate Partner 

Violence in Hamilton County, Ohio: Reproducing and Extending the Analyses of Wooldredge 

& Thistlewaite, U.S. Department of Justice, 2006-IJ-CX-0005, National Institute of Justice, 

NCJ222907. 

Garner, J. & Maxwell, C. (2009). Prosecution and Conviction Rates for Intimate Partner 

Violence. Criminal Justice Review, 34 (1), 44-79. 

Gilligan, M. (1992). Stalking the stalker: Developing new laws to thwart those who terrorize 

others. Georgia Law Review, 27, 285-342. 

Hall, D. (1997). Outside looking in: Stalkers and their victims. Doctoral dissertation, Ann Arbor 

MI: University of Michigan, cited in M. Brewster (Ed.). (2003). Stalking: Psychology, risk 

factors, interventions, and law. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute. 

Hall, D. M. (1998). The victims of stalking. In J.R. Meloy (Ed.), The Psychology of Stalking: 

Clinical and Forensic Perspectives, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.113-137. 

Harmon RB, Rosner R, & Owens H. (March 1995). Obsessional harassment and erotomania in 

a criminal court population. Journal of Forensic Science, 40(2):188-96. 

Harmon, R., Rosner, R., & Owens, H. (1998). Sex and violence in forensic population of 

obsessional harassers. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 236-49. 

Harrell, A., Visher, C., Newmark, L. & Yahner, J. (2009). The Judicial Oversight 

Demonstration: Culminating Report on the Evaluation. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, 99-WT-VX-K005, National Institute of Justice NCJ 224201. 

Heckman, J., & Hotz, J. (1989). Choosing among alternative nonexperimental methods for 

estimating the impact of social programs: the case of manpower training, Journal of the 

American Statistical Association, 84, 862–880.

Hosmer, D.W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied Logistic Regression. Chichester, UK:Wiley. 

Hunzeker, D. (1992). Stalking Legislation. Denver, CO: National Conference of State 

Legislatures. 

Isaac, N. (1994). Men who batter: Profile from a restraining order database. Archives of Family 

Medicine, 3 (1), 50-54. 

Jacobson, N. & Gottman, J. (1998). When Men Batter Women. New York, NY: Simon and 

Schuster. 

James, D. & Farnham , F. (2003). Stalking and serious violence. Journal of the American 

Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31, 432-439. 

Jordan, C., Logan, T.K., Walker, R. and Nigoff, A. (2003). Stalking: AN Examination of the 

Criminal Justice Response, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18 (2), 148-165. 

Kane, R.J. (2000). Police response to restraining orders in domestic violence incidents; 

Identifying the custody-threshold thesis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27 (5), 561-580. 

74
Klein, A. (2008). Are they likely already known to law enforcement? Practical Implications of 

Current Domestic Violence Research, Part I: Law Enforcement. U.S. Department of Justice, 

2007M-07032, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 222319, 21-22. 

Kang, P. (ed.) (July 1998). Stalking and Domestic Violence: The Third Annual Report to 

Congress under the Violence Against Women Act, Washington DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Violence Against Women Grants Office. 

Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: 

Thomson/Wadsworth. 

Klein, A. (2008). Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research. Washington 

D.C., U.S. Department of Justice, 2007M-07032, National Institute of Justice NCJ 222319, 

222320, & 222321. 

Klein, A. & Dubois, J. (2005). Domestic Violence Recidivists and Domestic Violence Serial 

Abusers: Findings Based on DV/SA Reporting Forms, Pawtucket, RI: Domestic Violence 

Training and Monitoring Unit. 

Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008). A longitudinal study of arrested batterers, 1995-2005: Career 

criminals. Violence Against Women, 14 (136-157). 

Klein, A., Tobin, T., Salomon, A. & Dubois, J. (2008). A Statewide Profile of Older Women 

Abuse and the Criminal Justice Response. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

2006-WG-BX-0009, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 222459. 

Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A, & DeMichele, M. (2005). Evaluation of the Rhode Island 

Probation Specialized Domestic Violence Supervision Unit. Washington DC: US Department 

of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

Leong, G.(1994). De Clerambault syndrome (erotomania) in the criminal justice system, another 

look at this recurring problem. Journal of Forensic Science, 39, 378-385. 

Logan, T.K., Cole, J., Shannon, L. & Walker, R. (2006). Partner Stalking: How Women 

Respond, Cope, and Survive, New York, N.Y.: Springer. 

Logan, TK, Walker, R., & Cole, J. (2008). Factors associated with separation and ongoing 

violence among women with civil protective orders. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 377-385. 

Logan, TK & Walker, R. (forthcoming 2009). Partner Stalking: Psychological Dominance or 

“Business as Usual?” Trauma, Violence, and Abuse.

Maxwell, C., Garner, J. & Fagan, J. (2001). The Effects of Arrest on Intimate Partner Violence: 

New Evidence from the Spouse Assault Replication Program, National Institute of Justice 

Research in Brief, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice. 

McFarlane, J., Campbell, J., Wilt, S., Sachs, C., Ulrich, Y., Xu, X.. (1999). Stalking and Intimate 

Partner Femicide. Homicide Studies 3(4):300-316. 

Meloy, J.R. (1996) Stalking (Obsessional Following: A review of some preliminary studies,

Aggression and Violent Behavior 1, 149-150). 

Meloy, J.R. (1998). The Psychology of Stalking: Clinical and Forensic Perspectives, San Diego, 

CA: Academic Press, 8). 

75
Meloy, J. (2002). Stalking and Violence. In J. Boon and L. Sheridan (eds.), Stalking and 

Psychosexual Obsession: Psychological Perspectives for Prevention, Policing, and 

Treatment. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 

Meloy, J.R., Davis, B. & Lovetter, J. (2001) Risk Factors for Violence Among Stalkers, Journal 

on Threat Assessment, 1 (3), 8-9. 

Miller, N. (2001). Stalking laws and implementation practices: A national review for policymakers 

and practitioners.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Institute for Law and Justice.

Miller, N. & Nugent, H. (January 2002). Stalking Laws and Implementation Practices: A 

National Review for Policymakers and Practitioners, Institute for Law and Justice. 

Mohandie, K., Meloy, J., McGowan, M. & Williams, J. (2006). The RECON typology of 

stalking: Reliability and validity based upon a large sample of North American stalkers, 

Journal of Forensic Science, 51 (1), 147-155. 

Mullen, P., Pathe, M., Purcell, R. & Stuart, G. (1999). Study of stalkers. American Journal of 

Psychology, 156, 244-49. 

Mullen, P., Pathe, M., Purcell, R. & Stuart, G. (2000). Stalkers and their victims. London, 

Cambridge University Press. 

Murphy, C., Musser, P. & Maton, K. (1998). Coordinated Community Intervention for Domestic 

Abusers: Intervention System Involvement and Criminal Recidivism, Journal of Family 

Violence, 13 (3), 263-284. 

Mustaine, E. & Tewksbury,R. (1999) A Routine Activity Theory Explanation for Women's 

Stalking Victimizations, Violence Against Women, 5, (1), 43-62.

National Conference of State Legislatures (August, 1995). Stalking enactments, Denver, Co. 

National Criminal Justice Association (1993). Project to develop a model anti-stalking code for 

the states. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Nicastro, A., Cousins, A., & Spitzberg, B. 2000. The tactical face of stalking. Journal of 

Criminal Justice, 28 (69-82. 

Palarea, R., Zona, M., Lance, J., & Langhinrichen-Rohling, J. (1999). The dangerous nature of 

intimate relationship stalking: Threats, violence and associated risk factors. Behavioral 

Sciences and the Law, 17, 269-83. 

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, second edition. Newbury Park, 

CA: Sage. 

Quinn, J. (1991). Man Pleads no contest in stalking case. Los Angeles Times, B.3. 

Roberts, K. (2005). Women’s experience of violence during the stalking by former romantic 

partners: factors predictive of stalking violence. Violence Against Women, 11 (1), 89-114. 

Rosenbaum, P. R. (1995). Springer Series in Statistics. Observational Studies. New York, 

NY:Springer-Verlag. 

Rosenbaum, P.R., and Rubin, D., (1984). Reducing Bias in Observation Studies Using 

Subclassification of the Propensity Scoring. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 

79, 516-524. 

76
Rosenfeld, B. (2003). Recidivism in stalking and obsessional harassment. Law and Human 

Behavior, 27 (3), 251-265. 

Rubin, D. (1979). Using Multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control 

bias in observational studies. Journal of American Statistical Association 74, 318-328. 

Ryan, G. & Weisner, T. (1996). Analyzing words in brief descriptions: Fathers and mothers 

describe their children. Cultural Anthropology Methods Journal 8 (3), 13-16. 

Schwartz-Watts, D. & Morgan, D. (1998). Violent versus nonviolent stalkers, Journal of 

American Academy of Psychiatry & Law, 26 (2), 241-245. 

Schaum, M. & Parrish, K (1995). Stalked: Breaking the silence on the crime of stalking in 

America, New York Pocket Books. 

Sheridan, L. & Davies, G. (2001). Violence and the prior victim-stalker relationship. Criminal 

Behavior and Mental Health., 11 (2):102-116. 

Schwartz-Watts, D. & Morgan, D. (1998). Violent versus nonviolent stalkers, Journal of 

American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 26 (2(, 241-245. 

Office for Victims of Crime (January 2002), Strengthening Antistalking Statutes, Legal Series 

Bulletin # 1. 

Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. New York, NY: Harper 

Collins. 

Thistlewaite, A., Wooldredge, J. & Gibbs, D. (1998). Severity of Dispositions and Domestic 

Violence Recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 44 (3), 388-399. 

Tjaden, P.& Thoennes, N. (April 1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National 

Violence Against Women Survey (NVAW), Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Justice and Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention. and Office of 

Justice Programs. 

Tjaden, P., and Thoennes, N. (2000). Stalking in America: Prevalence, Characteristics, and 

Police Response. In C. Brito and E. Gratto (eds.), Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific 

Problems, Critical Issues, and Making POP Work. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive 

Research Forum. 

Tjaden, P., and Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner 

Violence, Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 

181867). 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2001). Stalking: Its role in serious domestic violence cases, 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

Ventura, L. & Davis, G. (2004). Domestic Violence: Court Case Conviction and Recidivism in 

Toledo, Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. 

Wisconsin Department of Justice (2003). 2003 Domestic Abuse Incident Report:Charging 

Statistics, Top 15 Charges (www.doj.state.WI./US.com). 

Zona, M., Sharma, K. & Lane, J. (1993). A comparative study of erotomanic and obsessional 

subjects in forensic sample. Journal of Forensic Science, 38 (4), 894-903.

77
Appendix A 

Samples of Police and Researcher Identified Case Police Narratives 

and DV/SA reports 

Following are summaries of police narratives, supplemented by relative DV/SA data also 

submitted by police. At the end of each case description, what police cited the subject for is 

indicated, as well as prosecution actions, if any; dispositions, if successfully prosecuted; and 

whether or not the defendant was subsequently rearrested for another domestic violence offense. 

1. A. This case involved three incidents. On May 26, officers responded to a report of a 

violation of a no contact order. The victim informed officers that her ex-boyfriend “called her 

from a bar near her house” in violation of an active restraining order. The victim had been out for 

the evening and, upon returning home checked her messages and noticed on her caller ID, the 

phone number of a local bar. When she played the messages she heard messages left by her 

seemingly intoxicated ex-boyfriend who was asking her “who she was out with the other night 

and that he would find out even if she did not tell him.” She reported that the message left her 

“very scared and nervous” because it had originated from a bar just a short distance from her 

home. Her fear was that the suspect had possibly been drinking alcohol and that “he is very 

unstable when he drinks.” She added that the suspect’s mother and sister had told her that he 

“often becomes violent when he is drinking” and that she contacted police because she was 

afraid he would come to her home from the bar. 

Officers listened to the message and noted that the suspect, who identified himself by name, 

seemed “angry.” After taking the victim’s statement, officers noticed a taxi in front of her 

residence with the passenger fitting the suspect’s description. The suspect stated that he “did not 

want any trouble...he was just going to see his girl.” Officers confirmed with dispatch that the 

suspect had recently been served with the restraining order, which was still valid. The suspect 

was arrested and while being transported to the station, stated “several times that he loved [the 

victim] and that he was just going there to talk to her.” 

Three days later, on May 29th, officers responded to a report made by the same victim for a 

2nd violation of restraining order. She stated that the same suspect had been observed by a coworker walking by and standing on the corner of a street across from her place of work. When 

police responded, the suspect was seated on the front steps of a church, identified himself as the 

ex-boyfriend of the victim and, as police began handcuffing him, stated, “Not again.” He claimed 

to have been walking to a bank on a neighboring street, stating that passing by the victim’s place 

of work was “the quickest way” to get there after he left his job that day and that he “had no 

intention of violating the restraining order.” After some investigation, police ascertained that the 

suspect had left work two hours earlier and that the route he claimed to be taking from work to 

the bank did not include passing by the victim’s place of work, but actually was “out of [his] 

way.” 

78
The victim reported that she had observed him earlier walking slowly “by the front of the 

office” and “staring at her” then turning down a side street, completing a circle around her place 

of work. This observation was confirmed by the victim’s co-worker. Officers measured the 

suspect’s distance from the victim’s place of work as “20 feet away from her” and noted that the 

office was “entirely enclosed in glass” and was “in full view of everything in the office to parties 

walking outside.” According to the victim, the suspect was aware that she worked from 3:00 pm 

to midnight and is frequently alone in the office. She was grateful that her co-worker arrived 

when he did because she feared that the suspect “may have done something to her” had she been 

alone. 

The victim explained to police that she and the suspect had been in a “serious relationship for 

approximately 4 months” that had ended about one month earlier. She obtained a restraining 

order after having alleged that he “threatened her and her friends and made remarks stating he 

would make a bomb and blow her up and he would be long gone when it happens.” Officers 

noticed that while making this report, the victim “was nervous, shaking and afraid.” 

The victim’s statement provided additional information about previous threats made by the 

suspect. She included in her statement that he was “very possessive and jealous and told me 

several times that he would kill me.” After the relationship ended, he threatened her and her 

friend and he told her she “didn’t know who [she] was messing with and what he was capable 

of.” She stated that this last statement has “stuck in [her] mind” and cause her to be “afraid of 

what he will do next.” 

After the suspect was in custody, police further discussed his questionable route to the bank 

from work and when asked by the officer why he had circled around the victim’s office, he 

stated, “I don’t know, I thought I was in love.” 

Police cited for violation of protective order, charges dismissed by prosecutor, 

subsequent arrest for violation of protective order. 

1. B. The victim arrived at the police station looking “for advice on how to deal with an exboyfriend.” The victim and suspect had been involved in a 12-year relationship with two children 

in common. Following their separation over a year ago, the suspect moved out of state—but had 

recently returned to Rhode Island. On the day of this incident, the suspect “showed up, 

uninvited” at the victim’s apartment, questioning her about her personal life and a possible new 

boyfriend. 

The victim explained to police that the suspect “has a very bad temper” and that in the past 

she has “called police due to his temper.” She was aware that the suspect is currently 

unemployed and “has other problems” and that she is “afraid...she will be the target of his 

anger.” 

After returning home from dropping off her child at the bus stop today, she observed the 

suspect standing in the hallway of her apartment building. She returned to her car and sat there 

for approximately 45 minutes until the suspect left the building. The victim stated that she was 

fearful that today’s incident “may be the beginning of continued harassment.” 

79
Officers reported that while the victim was at the police station discussing the incident, the 

suspect called the victim on her cell phone, and could be heard “screaming and swearing” at her. 

They noticed that, “upon hearing his voice, [the victim] started to shake.” 

The DVSA form noted that there had this suspect had not assaulted this victim in the past but 

there had not been a restraining order issued prior to this incident. 

Police cited for stalking, not prosecuted by prosecutors, subsequent arrest for domestic 

assault and disorderly. 

2. A. Police officers responded to a victim for a report of a domestic incident that had 

occurred the day before. The victim stated that her ex-boyfriend had been “outside her apartment 

yesterday harassing her.” She added that he entered her apartment and confronted her about 

having a new boyfriend. The victim stated that when she asked him to leave, he “raised a closed 

fist and said, ‘I should punch you.’” She explained to police that she “was afraid” of him when 

he gestured with his fist because he had “assaulted her in the past” and she was “concerned for 

her and her son’s safety.” The victim was afraid that the suspect would hurt her or destroy her 

property. 

Shortly after police left, the suspect was reportedly driving around the victim’s home. When 

the victim left her home, she noticed his vehicle driving behind her. She also reported that she 

had also noticed he had parked his vehicle “down the street from her apartment” the previous 

week. 

According to information recorded on the DVSA form, this suspect had assaulted the victim 

several times beginning five years earlier and there had been a restraining order in the past, but it 

was not currently active. 

Police cited for stalking, not prosecuted, subsequent arrests for violation of protective 

order. 

2. B. Police responded to a reported domestic. Upon arrival, police noted that the victim 

appeared “visibly upset...trembling and crying, her make-up appeared to be slightly smeared, 

and she was complaining of pain to her arms and chest/breast region.” The responding officer 

“immediately observed scratches to her right wrist and...a bruising to the back of her right 

arm...” 

The victim reported that her ex-boyfriend had “been harassing her” recently “over their 

terminated relationship” and believes that he is responsible for the “multiple harassing/crank 

phone calls” she had been receiving over the several weeks prior. On the evening of this incident, 

the victim opened the door, allowing the suspect to enter her home. A verbal argument ensued at 

which point she asked the suspect to leave. The suspect then physically assaulted her, pulling her 

pajama top “over her head revealing her breast” and “forcibly pinned her against storm door 

window” exposing her “bare breast and stomach to the neighborhood.” After a struggle, the 

suspect “grabbed [the victim] by the breast and pinned her against the stairway...carried her 

80
down the hallway to the master bedroom where he threw her on the bed...touching/grabbing her 

breast.” While police were on scene, the telephone “rang three times.” Officers answered each of 

the telephone calls; however, the caller hung up the first two calls after police identified 

themselves. The suspect identified himself when he called for the third time and advised police 

that he would “not respond to” police headquarters that night and that he would “respond in the 

morning, maybe.” 

Information on the DVSA form indicate that the suspect made a threat—“I am glad I hurt 

you” and acknowledged that this suspect had assaulted this victim several months earlier, having 

thrown objects at her. The DVSA form indicated that there had previously been a restraining 

order against this suspect, but that it was not currently active. 

Police cited for assault, dismissed by prosecutors, subsequently arrested three times for 

stalking. 

3. A. The victim reported to police that over the course of just over a week, her ex-boyfriend 

had confronted her and her two sisters, and has been heard yelling, “I love you, I f---ing love 

you, I f---ing need you, I can’t live without you.” She explained that she and the suspect had 

been involved in a 9-month relationship that had recently ended. According to the police report, 

the suspect had, at one point, “grabbed” the victim and kept her from leaving. 

Following the report of these incidents, officers advised her to “get a restraining order and 

contact the Domestic Violence Unit” of the police department. 

Information on the DVSA form indicates that this suspect had assaulted the victim once, a 

month earlier but no protective orders had been issued against him previously. 

Police cited for stalking, prosecuted and sentenced to probation, no new domestic 

violence arrests. 

3. B. The victim and suspect had been involved in a one-year relationship that ended in 

September of 2000. The suspect had reportedly “harassed her” since she ended their relationship. 

The victim obtained a restraining order against him in January 2001 after he physically assaulted 

her the day after Christmas. Shortly before the victim ended their relationship, the suspect 

assaulted her—breaking her ribs. 

 While having dinner with a male friend in February 2001, the victim noticed the suspect walk 

into the restaurant. After entering the restaurant, the suspect proceeded to stand within “6 feet” of 

her table, looking at her, and ordered a drink. She and her friend paid their bill and left. 

The following morning, while she was letting her dog out and collecting garbage cans at the 

end of the driveway, she noticed the suspect driving toward her. He “pulled into the 

driveway...put the window down” and told her that she’d “better not ever go” to that restaurant 

again. He continued to yell at her, saying “I told you not to go there” and stated that she was not 

allowed to “go anywhere that he frequents.” When he was through, he backed his car up and 

drove away. 

81
At the time of this incident, the victim stated that she had been staying at the home of a friend 

who was away on business. According to the victim, no one was aware where she had been 

staying. She further explained that she was shocked that “he knew where I was or how to find 

me...I couldn’t even speak because I was so surprised.” She reported to police that the reason 

she was nervous was because she had “no idea how [the suspect] found out where [she] was 

staying.” She surmised that he had followed her to her friend’s house after having left the 

restaurant. 

She said she was afraid of the suspect because “he can get very angry and physically abusive, 

which is the reason for the restraining order...I am literally trying to hide from him so that he 

does not bother me.” She noted that she has also observed his car “often and many times” when 

he parks in front of her salon. 

The DVSA form indicates that this suspect had an active protective order. 

Police cited for violation of a no contact order, dismissed by prosecutors, subsequent 

arrest for violation of no contact order. 

4. A. The victim went to the police headquarters and wrote a statement that said earlier that 

evening, she had received a phone call from her ex-boyfriend which said, “You f---ing slut, I’m 

going to find you tonight, wait till I find you I’m going to f---ing murder you and whoever 

you’re with”—after which the victim hung up the phone. The suspect continued calling back—

placing 15 phone calls over the next several hours. The victim stated that each time she answered 

the phone, she told him, “leave me alone” but he continued to call and saying, “Wait till I see 

you, where are you, I’ll f---ing murder you.” She added that at one point the suspect called and 

said, “You f--ing slut, I hate you, if you were in front of me right now I would stab you.” The 

phone calls reported continued throughout the morning, stopping at 4:20 am on the date of the 

police report. 

She told police that there had “been a history of verbal and mental abuse in the past,” 

recounting an incident when she was three months pregnant during an argument when he 

“grasped her head with both hands and started shaking it violently.” She also told of another 

incident when he “repeatedly punched the wall, inches from her head because he was “unhappy 

with her.” When asked if she had reported these incidents, she said, “No...he acts so politely in 

front of...family and friends,” so she “didn’t think anyone would believe her.” 

Police noted in their narrative that while writing her statement, the victim “stopped several 

times” and that they observed her hands shaking and eyes tearing up. The victim stated that she 

“feared for the safety of her daughter and herself” and feared “running into [the suspect] on the 

street...uncertain if he will harm her or not.” 

The victim was accompanied by her mother, who reported she had listened to several of the 

telephone calls. The victim’s mother also provided a written statement indicating that during one 

of the calls the suspect stated, “I’m going to murder you, you f---ing slut, if you were in front of 

me right now I would stab you, you f---ing n------ lover, I’ll kill you.” 

82
Before she left the interview room, the suspect called her cell phone three separate times 

saying, “I can’t believe what you did to me last night.” By the third call, she handed the phone to 

the officer who explained to him that he needed to “come in right away” to speak with him and 

that if he did not do so, a “warrant would be issued for his arrest.” Several hours passed and the 

officer noted that the suspect had not turned himself in. Officers contacted the police in the town 

where the suspect lived, who responded to his home, but was told he was not there. 

Information provided on the DVSA form shows that the suspect had assaulted this victim 

once before, several months earlier and an arrest warrant had been issued for that incident, 

charging the suspect with threatening/harassing phone calls. 

Police cited for domestic disorderly conduct, charges dismissed by prosecutors, 

subsequently arrested for 3 domestic assaults, and two violations of protective orders. 

4. B. The victim reported to police that she and the suspect had dated for seven years and had 

two children in common. She stated that she was “in fear” for “her life” because of past violence 

perpetrated against her by the suspect. She reported that he had been harassing her and that he 

had recently “escalated the harassment by making several phone calls and driving to her house 

between the hours of 12:30 am and 1:30 am” beeping his car horn “for several minutes.” She told 

a detective in her statement that she had witnessed the suspect in his vehicle, driving through her 

driveway and in front of her house late at night and in the early morning hours. 

The victim saved eleven messages on her cell phone dating back several weeks, in which the 

suspect sounded “increasingly angry and upset.” She believed that the suspect appeared to “be 

angry with her” because of how “she is raising their children” and because “she has a boyfriend.” 

In the victim’s statement to police, she told them that she “is afraid of [the suspect] and is 

afraid that he might kill her.” She reported to police that she had an active restraining order on 

him at the time of this report, but neither police nor the victim could locate a copy of the 

restraining order. Officers told her that they would see if they could locate the order, and if 

found, they would review the order and issue a warrant for his arrest possible.” 

Information provided on the DVSA form indicates that the suspect had assaulted this victim at 

least once before this incident. 

Police cited for stalking, but prosecutors did not charge him for any offense. There were 

no subsequent domestic arrests during the study period. 

5. A. Police responded to a report of a no-contact order violation. When they arrived, the 

victim informed officers that “her ex-boyfriend...approached her residence” in his vehicle, 

“proceeded to walk into the yard, attempted to open the door, rang the bell...knocked on the 

door...then left the residence without incident.” Officers spoke with the victim’s plumber, who 

stated he was in the victim’s residence when the suspect arrived. 

The police noted in their narrative that the victim had also received “a check, certificate for 

massage, and greeting card” from the suspect. They also noted that while completing the DVSA 

form, the victim stated that in the past, she had seen the suspect in possession of what she 

believed was a firearm, with a “red laser type sighting device” attached. 

83
Information on the DVSA form specified that the suspect had assaulted the victim before, 

with officers noting that there had been an arrest for the assault approximately one month prior to 

this incident. Additionally, the DVSA form indicates at the time of this report, there was an 

active protective order. 

Police cited for stalking. Prosecutors charged him with violation of a protective order 

but subsequently dismissed the charge in court. There were no subsequent domestic 

violence arrests during the study period. 

5. B. The victim filed a “harassing phone call complaint” to police. She stated that for three 

hours on the date of the report, she received “a total of thirteen harassing phone calls from” the 

father of her two-year-old son. According to the victim, she repeated told the suspect to “stop 

calling her” but the calls continued. The victim found the final phone call particularly upsetting 

when the suspect stated, “I will never leave you alone and this is never going to end.” 

The victim further stated that she was “in fear of [the suspect] due to his past violent 

behavior...physical abuse toward her and her knowledge that at one time he was in possession of 

a firearm.” She added that, at times, she “has noticed [the suspect] on her property...looking in 

the windows” of her home. 

The police narrative noted that the suspect had been earlier arrested for “felony assault with a 

dangerous weapon (firearm)” but that this current victim was not the target of that assault. 

Information provided on the DVSA form indicates that the suspect had assaulted this victim in 

the past and that there was no current no contact order in place. 

Police cited him for threatening phone call. He was prosecuted and placed on probation. 

He was arrested subsequently for domestic property damage. 

6. A. A 26-year-old victim went to the police station to provide a witness statement. The 

victim and suspect in this case had been involved in a two-year dating relationship. In her 

statement, the victim said the suspect had been “calling her repeatedly since they broke up” 

seven months earlier. The suspect calls her “between 5 and 20 times a day sporadically during 

the week” and had come to her home and place of work. According to the victim, she asked him 

to stop calling her and states that she is becoming “very annoyed and bothered with these phone 

calls and...feels threatened by [the suspect].” She added that she believes the suspect is 

responsible for damage recently done to her vehicle—which she had reported to police two days 

earlier. 

The DVSA form reveals that the victim denied that this suspect had ever assaulted her before 

and that there was not an active protective order in place at the time of the incident. 

Police cited suspect for stalking. Prosecutors did not charge him. He was not arrested 

again for domestic violence during the study period. 

84
6. B. Police received a report of a violation of a restraining order on a weekday afternoon in 

2002. When they arrived at the location, they were met by the victim, a 39-year-old woman. She 

explained that the suspect in this case was her ex-husband and father of her children. The couple 

had separated four years earlier, at which time the victim obtained a restraining order against her 

husband, and they divorced a year later. At the time of this incident, her ex-husband had a court 

order for visitation with his son on Saturdays. 

The victim stated that her ex-husband “attempts to stop by the house any times he wants,” 

“calls the house at least once a week” asking her “for another chance” and saying that he 

“doesn’t want to see her with anyone else.” In response to his calls, the victim tells him that she 

“doesn’t want anything to do with him” and reminds him that he should not be calling her due to 

the restraining order. Despite her attempts to discourage his attempts to contact her, he has 

attempted to contact her at her place of work. On Christmas Day, while at the house to pick up 

the children for a visit, he brought her flowers. When she would not accept the flower, he left 

them at the house with a note saying he “wanted her back” and signed his name. 

At times, both the victim and neighbors have noticed the suspect “sitting in his parked car in 

her neighborhood” and that “this sort of behavior” had been occurring for the past year, “but has 

progressively gotten worse.” The victim stated that she never reported his phone calls or 

harassing behavior before because she “didn’t want any problems with him and the children” but 

that she called police today because “she is in fear of her safety.” The officer witness statement 

noted that the suspect had been arrested previously for domestic assault and has a documented 

problem with alcohol. In the witness statement, the victim said that the suspect “has been 

physical with me before...while we were married and has been arrested for Domestic Assault in 

1993. I also know that [the suspect] likes to drink a lot.” She added that she requested police 

assistance because she was “afraid of what [the suspect] might do and I want him to stop 

harassing me.” 

The DVSA form indicates that the suspect assaulted this victim several times over the course 

of their marriage and that an active protective order was in place at the time of this report. 

Police cited him for violation of a protective order. Prosecutors dismissed the charge and 

he was subsequently arrested for violation of a protective order. 

85
Appendix B

Qualitative Interview Protocol 

Note to Interviewer 

The following “script” is meant as a suggested approach for interviewers to 

introduce the Stalking Study, the purpose of the qualitative interviews and 

informed consent. Please feel free to present these materials in any way that makes 

sense to you while touching on the points included below

Background on the Study

Welcome and thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. As you may 

know, the National Institute of Justice (the U.S. Department of Justice’s research 

arm), awarded Advocates for Human Potential (AHP) a grant to conduct research 

on stalking and the criminal justice response to it. 

[Introduce yourself and AHP, along with a brief summary of our work in this area 

and in Rhode Island— AHP staff have completed other research projects in Rhode 

Island including NIJ sponsored projects evaluating Rhode Island Department of 

Correction Probation and Parole’s Domestic Violence Supervision Program, and 

more recently a study of elder abuse in Rhode Island.] 

The purpose of the study is to increase understanding about stalking, and 

specifically the criminal justice response to it. While there has been much research 

on stalking and stalkers, there has been far more limited information available on 

the criminal justice response. One seminal study conducted in Colorado documents 

wide undercharging of stalking (generally charged and sentenced with harassment 

or violation of a restraining order versus stalking), but it remains unclear who law 

86
enforcement identifies as stalkers and for what activities and how the criminal 

justice system responds to those identified as stalkers. Furthermore, there is little 

evidence to evaluate whether application of stalking statutes adds value to efforts 

to protect victims. The current research will focus on these questions. 

Rhode Island was selected for the research due to the excellence of its record 

keeping system available on domestic violence incidents, including stalking. The 

state mandates all law enforcement agencies file these reports with one agency and 

they are the most detailed and extensive in the country. As a result of the 

quantitative data collected so far, researchers have been able to complete a 

comprehensive picture of stalking in Rhode Island. The purpose of these 

interviews is to better understand these findings, and explore their implications for 

those responding to stalking in this state and nationally. Study findings will be 

presented in a final report to NIJ. They will also be directed to interested parties in 

Rhode Island, including those participating in these interviews.

Confidentiality and Informed Consent

 I want to assure you that your responses will be completely confidential. No 

identifying information will be linked to your individual responses. Our final 

report will present responses by collective themes and if we use any direct quotes 

they will never be connected with any individual’s name unless you specifically 

agree to be quoted. In these cases we will obtain your prior consent in writing for 

each quotation used. 

[For group meetings] We also ask that the discussion we have here be kept 

confidential. What we mean by this is that you agree not to discuss individual 

87
participant’s viewpoints with other people outside this room. We ask you to 

maintain this confidentiality so that everyone here can feel safe about expressing 

his or her opinion. 

Do you have any questions about the stalking study or this interview? 

Before we proceed, you will need to complete the Participant Consent Form. 

Please read this form over carefully. I will give you one form to sign and one form 

that you can take home for your file. 

[After respondent has a chance to review the form] Do you have any questions 

about informed consent? 

88
Law Enforcement 

Purpose of the Meeting: To get more in-depth understanding of the police 

response to stalking. [Interviewer: please probe for details under each of the 

general question categories] 

I. Identification of Cases as stalking.

• Have you ever cited an abuser for stalking? If so, what led you to cite 

stalking as opposed to some other offense (i.e., violation of a no contact 

order)? 

• Are there particular core elements to an incident that you looked for when 

citing an offense as stalking? What are they? 

• What other factors make it more likely that an officer would cite an abuser 

for stalking? (i.e., third party witnesses? Prior police involvement? Victim 

asserting prior assaults where police not called? Occurrence of behavior in 

public space as opposed to a dwelling?) 

• Do any of the following factors make a difference in deciding whether or not 

to cite stalking? If so, would they make you more of less apt to cite stalking: 

Presence of children? Nature of victim/abuser relationship? Prior police 

involvement? Abuse involving physical violence? Property damage? 

Violation of a no contact order? Violation of a civil protective order? 

Repeated emails? Phone calls? Letters? The abuser leaving the scene before 

police arrive? Prior criminal history? 

• Under what circumstances may it be advisable to cite a charge other than 

stalking, even if there is evidence that stalking was occurring? (nature of the 

89
evidence, ease of future prosecution, reluctance of victim to cooperate in the 

future, victim credibility in question?) 

• What level of review is undertaken by command staff in regard to citing 

stalking? 

• How would you rate stalkers compared to others cited for domestic violence 

offense? (Less or more dangerous than abusers who assault and injure their 

victims? Annoying but not particularly dangerous? Sick individuals who 

need help to get over the relationship?) 

 

Note to Interviewer: If questions do not elicit enough information, you can 

read the following two cases and ask why or why not they think the person was 

cited for stalking: 

Police Stalking Narrative: 

The victim reported numerous harassing phone calls from her ex-husband of four 

months. The calls, in excess of 30, also violated a no contact order. The calls 

included, she told police, “general statements that she had robbed [suspect] of 

everything, that she had tried to put [suspect] in jail and that there were 

consequences to be paid.” Police officers listened to two of the messages on the 

victim’s answering service and noted that the suspect seemed “extremely 

distraught, he cried” and “at times could not talk.” The officers added, however, 

that they “did not hear nor did [victim] indicate that any specific threat had been 

made.” Officers confirmed that a no contact order was on record and active until 

the following year. Police cited the suspect for stalking. 

Researcher Stalking Narrative 

The victim reported approximately 15 threatening phone calls from her husband 

from whom she was seeking a divorce. The victim indicated that the suspect had 

assaulted her in the past and that “she fears he may hurt her.” The series of phone 

calls began, the victim reported, with the suspect cancelling visitation with the 

daughter. However, during the call he began discussing the impending divorce, 

stating he “was angry because he was told by the court that he had to have her 

vehicle registration reinstated and also had to have her insurance reinstated.” The 

suspect added that “he would make her life miserable if he had to do those things.” 

At that point the victim stated that she hung up the phone. The suspect then placed 

90
several more calls that the victim did not answer, but after the calls continued, she 

answered one of them. The suspect told her “I’m going to make your life hell,” “if 

I see you, I will kick you in the face” and “if I catch you with another guy, I’ll kill 

you.” She hung up and the calls continued. She reported that she picked up and 

hung up further calls without speaking with the suspect, but traced each call by 

dialing *57. Fearful, the victim went to her neighbor’s across the street. While at 

the neighbor’s home, her neighbor answered one of the telephone calls from the 

suspect and reported to police that the suspect threatened him, stating he was 

“going to cut his head off.” Police also determined that the suspect had called the 

victim’s mother’s home “approximately 10 times in the past hour” looking for the 

victim. Officers also noted that the suspect “called the house four times” when they 

were present and that they observed the victim telling the suspect that “she did not 

want to talk to him and told him to stop calling.” The victim had a protective order 

against the suspect previously but the report did not indicate whether or not it was 

active at the time. Police cited the suspect for threatening phone calls. 

And/Or 

Police identified stalker with witnesses in public place: Police were dispatched 

to the security office at Salve Regina University. Upon arrival, officers met with a 

campus security officer and the victim, a student at the university. The victim’s 

roommate made the initial call to campus security because, according to the victim, 

“she feels uncomfortable when [suspect]” shows up at their room. The victim 

reported that “she was being harassed by her ex-boyfriend, a summer resident of 

the dormitory who was working for food services at the college. They had dated 

for approximately one year and ended the relationship four months earlier. 

According to the victim, the suspect “shows up at her room from time to time 

despite the fact she has repeatedly told him to leave her alone.” The victim stated 

to police that the suspect “has never hit her, but he does make her and her 

roommate “very nervous.” The suspect had “taken all the courses she has signed 

up for, sends her emails on her computer, and has called her at various times.” The 

victim’s roommate confirmed the victim’s report. In a written witness statement, 

the victim wrote “though I don’t feel [suspect] is capable of physically harming 

me, he is becoming a disruption in my roommate’s and my life.” After taking the 

report, campus security officers accompanied police to the suspect’s dormitory 

room, told the suspect to stay away and not contact the victim again. Officers also 

informed him that a detective would contact him in the next few days. The 

detective did and arrested him for stalking.

Researcher-identified case with no witnesses in private: The victim came to the 

police station to report that “her ex-boyfriend...had broken into her house...and 

pushed her.” The two had been involved in a relationship that was ended by the 

91
victim two months earlier when she asked the suspect to move out of the home. 

She reported that “since that time [the suspect] has continuously harassed her by 

following her to her friends’ and family members’ houses and not leaving when 

repeatedly asked.” On the date of this incident, she reported that the suspect had 

called her at home and that, during that call, she told him “not to come to her home 

and not to call her anymore.” She reported that “a short time later, she was on the 

telephone with a friend when the line went dead” and, within minutes, the suspect 

entered her home. She argued with the suspect and told him to leave. The suspect 

responded by pushing her, refusing to leave and stating that he “wished to speak to 

her about working things out” and then “stayed in the house for several hours.” 

The victim could not call the police because the phone line had gone dead prior to 

the suspect entering her home.

According to the victim, the suspect admitted to “breaking the phone line” 

from the exterior of the house, but he agreed to “fix it before leaving.” The suspect 

had also reportedly “broke the locks” of the kitchen window and pushing on the 

window in order to gain entry. When officers returned with the victim to her home 

they wrote that the phone line “appeared to have been broken and taped back 

together,” and “the window...had been broken.” The officers ran a criminal check 

and found that the suspect had “an extensive criminal record including charges in 

Massachusetts of attempted murder, discharging a firearm, assault to kill, assault 

and battery/dangerous weapon and breaking and entering” and had a Rhode Island 

warrant for “an assault charge.” The responding police officers cited the suspect 

for Breaking and Entering, Domestic Simple Assault and Failure to Relinquish the 

Telephone, but not stalking.

II. Advantages and disadvantages of citing stalking. 

• Are there particular advantages or disadvantages to citing stalking? What are 

these? 

III. Training received on stalking statute, its investigation, and the citing of 

stalking charges. 

• Does the Department provide training on stalking law enforcement? 

• What type of training have you received and by whom? Did you find it 

useful? 

92
• Did it increase the likelihood you would cite someone for stalking as 

opposed to another DV offense? 

• What type of follow-up supervision exists, if any, specific to stalking law 

enforcement? 

II. Specific policies, procedures, and practices regarding stalking law 

enforcement. 

• Are there specific policies and procedures in place regarding the 

implementation of the stalking statute? 

• Are there written guidelines (can we get a copy)? 

• If not, are there “usual practices” regarding implementation? Specific 

approaches encouraged? Discouraged? 

• Have you been told or is it your impression that prosecutors welcome 

stalking cases or would prefer single-incident DV cases (i.e., violation of no 

contact order rather than stalking?) 

• Do you think the stalking arrests in your department are too many, too few, 

just about right? 

V. Challenges and Accomplishments in Responding to stalking 

• What do you regard as the key challenges in responding to incidents 

involving stalking? 

• What do you see as you or your Department’s major accomplishments in 

this area? 

• If improvements are warranted, what do you see as necessary next steps to 

improve the police or prosecutors response to stalking in RI? 

93
Prosecutors 

Purpose of the Meeting: To better understand the prosecution of stalking in 

Rhode Island [Interviewer: please probe for details under each of the general 

question categories]. 

I. Policies, procedures, practices regarding filing stalking charges. 

• Are there specific policies and procedures in place regarding the filing of 

stalking charges? Are these written policies and procedures (get copy)? If 

not, are there “usual practices” in regard to filing stalking charges? What 

are they? (get examples). 

• If police cite someone for stalking in their report, does your office (AG) 

automatically get a copy to review before charges are filed in District 

Court? Or, is it up to the town or city solicitor or police prosecutor? How 

and when do you get stalking cases now? 

II. Quality of evidence needed to pursue stalking charges 

• What level of evidence is required in order to pursue stalking charges 

(probe whether having witnesses available makes a difference)? How 

does this play into decisions to move forward with a stalking charge? 

• How easy is it to prosecute a stalking case? Is it harder of easier than 

typical felony? What would make it easier? 

• Because stalking is a felony, are indigent defendants provided with more 

aggressive or experienced counsel? Is the private bar more apt to contest 

stalking charges because they are felonies than violation of no contact 

orders? Are defense attorneys more likely to ask for jury trials if stalking 

charged? 

94
• What elements are hardest to prove, convince a jury/judge of? 

• Do police provide you adequate evidence to prosecute stalking cases 

when they cite the charge as stalking? When they don’t, do you have 

access to supplemental investigation resources? 

III. Availability of victims to pursue stalking charges 

• Is the availability of victims a challenge in pursing stalking charges? How is 

this managed? What role do victim desires play? Do they want stalking 

charges brought or prefer easier to prove charges where they may not have 

to testify? 

• In your experience, do victims generally convince juries that they are 

sufficiently afraid of injury to convict their abusers of stalking or do most 

juries think they are exaggerating? 

IV. Advantages and disadvantages of going forward on stalking charges. 

• Are there major advantages and disadvantages to going forward on a 

stalking charge? What are these? 

• What is the content of the mental health counseling programs many 

stalkers are sentenced to enter? 

V. Challenges and Accomplishments in Prosecuting Stalking Cases 

• Do you think the level of arrest and prosecution for stalking across RI to be 

too high, too low, or about right?

• What do you regard as the major challenges in prosecuting stalking cases? 

• What do you see as the major accomplishments around prosecution of 

stalking cases in Rhode Island.

• If improvements are necessary, what do you see as next steps to improve the 

police or prosecutors response to stalking in RI?

95
Advocates 

Purpose of the Meeting: To assess law enforcement and prosecutor’s response to 

stalking from the Advocates perspective. 

I. Describe role of Advocacy Organization in respect to stalking. 

• What is the role of RI’s domestic violence advocates in regard to 

stalking? Is this role the same or different from other instances of 

domestic violence? Are there special challenges in this role? 

II. Dimension and awareness of the problem. 

• What is the dimension of the problem of stalking in Rhode Island? Is 

the current arrest and prosecution level too low, too high, or about 

right? 

• How much domestic violence involves stalking? How do you know 

this? 

• Do victims under assess their stalking victimization? Know they are 

being stalked but don’t think it is a crime? Don’t take it as seriously as 

assault? Prefer other, easier to prove cases where they don’t have to 

testify? 

III. Satisfaction with police and prosecutor’s response to stalking. 

• How would you rate the response of police to stalking? (get examples 

of positive or negative response) 

• How would you rate the response of prosecutors to stalking? (get 

examples of positive or negative response). Too often screen them out 

or remand them to District Court? 

96
• Are there certain cases more likely than others to be charged with 

stalking and prosecuted in Superior Court? Describe. 

• Do victims care if stalkers are prosecuted for stalking as long as they 

are prosecuted for some DV crime? (If yes, why?) 

• Are victims satisfied with police and prosecutor response to stalking? 

Explain why. 

IV. Pressing for stalking charges 

• Do advocates press for specific charges of stalking and in what 

instances? Give case examples (note: no names should be mentioned). 

• Why are so few stalking charges cited by police? 

• Why do prosecutors dismiss or reduce those cited by police? 

• Do victims prefer reduction of stalking charges if they reduce their 

need to testify in court? 

• Other challenges to pressing for stalking charges? 

V. Challenges and Accomplishments 

• What are the greatest challenges to improving the justice system response 

to stalking? 

• Are there particular accomplishments, either in the advocacy community or 

otherwise, in working with victims of stalking? Please describe. 

• What do you see as the next and necessary steps to improve the police or 

prosecutors response to stalking? 

97
Defense Attorneys 

• Have you ever defended a client for stalking? How many? 

• Is the arrest and prosecution of stalking in RI too high, too low, about 

right? Explain. 

• Are there specific challenges in defending someone charged with 

stalking? What are they? 

• Are you more apt to ask for a jury trial for stalking or less? Is it case 

specific? If so, what factors would call for a jury trial? 

• Do you advise clients charged with stalking to plead to misdemeanor 

charges if you think there is a good chance of conviction, fair chance? 

• In your experience, do the average stalking case you see warrant being 

prosecuted as a felony? Explain. 

• How amenable are prosecutors in stalking cases to allowing for reduced 

charges? 

98
Appendix C 

Stalking Classification Template 

1. Pattern of Harassment Over Time 

 List Specific Conduct directed at Victim, exclusive of following. 

 Was the Conduct repeated? 

 Was the Act knowing and willful by the suspect? 

 Did the Act(s) cause distress or fear of injury by victim? 

Conduct Repeated 

Yes/no 

Knowing? 

Willful? 

Yes/no 

Intent to 

seriously 

alarm, 

annoy, 

bother 

victim? 

Yes/No 

Served No 

legitimate 

Purpose? 

Yes/No 

Cause 

substantial 

emotional 

distress or 

fear of bodily 

injury? 

Yes/No 

A. 

B. 

C. 

2. Following 

 List instances of following 

 Was there more than one instance of following? 

 Was the following willful and malicious? 

 Did the following place victim in reasonable fear of bodily injury? 

Following Repeated? 

Yes/no 

Willful & 

Malicious? 

Yes/No 

Place victim in 

fear of injury? 

Yes/No 

99
3. If stalking found, provide evidence for conclusions based on DV/SA, 

incident/arrest report, or victim statement. 

100
Appendix D 

Discussion of State Stalking Laws 

Stalking laws are not uniform state to state, although Rhode Island’s stalking law is not 

atypical in most respects. Generally, stalking is broadly defined as a willful or intentional 

commission of a series of acts that would cause a reasonable person to fear death or serious 

bodily injury that that, in fact, does place the victim in fear of death or serious bodily injury. 

Stalking is a crime in every state. Some states also have separate harassment statutes that 

overlap. Rhode Island does not. 

However, there are variations among the state stalking statutes, relating primarily to the type 

of repeated behavior that is prohibited, whether a threat is required as part of the stalking, the 

reaction of the victim and the intent of the stalker (Kang, 2002). Most states have broad 

definitions of required behavior, including “harassment,” “communicating” or “nonconsensual 

contact.” Some, like Rhode Island also spell out specific activities such as “following.” Only a 

handful of states restrict stalking to narrow, specific acts such as only following or keeping a 

person under surveillance (720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-7.3(2001)) or following and lying in wait 

(Conn. Gen. Stat. §§53a-181d, -181e (2001)). 

Most states have amended their initial statutes that required a “credible threat” as an element 

of the offense. Most allow the threat to be implicit in the context of the case. Only two require an 

explicit threat be made (Ark. Stat. Ann.§ 5-71-229(2001); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 43 

(2001)). Most states, like Rhode Island require conduct that would cause a reasonable person to 

fear bodily injury or suffer substantial emotional distress. As in Rhode Island, some states 

specifically refer to conduct that “alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes” the victim. Unlike 

Rhode Island, some state statutes require that the stalking must, in fact, cause the victim to, in 

fact, actually experience emotional distress or fear. 

101
Most of states have also amended initial stalking statutes that required evidence that the 

stalker intended to cause the specified victim reaction. That, too, has been broadened to require 

only general intent, rather than requiring proof that the defendant intended to cause a specified 

reaction. Many states, like Rhode Island, simply require proof that the actions were intentional. 

Others, like the National Institute of Justice Anti Stalking Code require that the defendant know 

or reasonably should know that the acts would cause the victim to be placed on fear. 

Most states have explicit exceptions for certain behaviors, commonly described as in Rhode 

Island as “constitutionally protected activity.”Also like Rhode Island, many states increase 

penalties for stalking in violation of a protective order (see, e.g., Ala. Code § 13A-6-91 (2001); 

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3A-3.1 (2000); Kentucky Rev. Stat. §§ 508.140-150). 

102
Appendix E

DV/SA Form 

103
104