TPO Processing Experience and Implications
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Protection Order or Chaos? The TPO Processing Experience in the Las Vegas Justice Court and Its Larger Implications for Nevada Law Institute for Court Management Court Executive Development Program 2009-2010 Phase III Project May 2010 Joe Tommasino Staff Attorney Las Vegas Justice Court Las Vegas, Nevada 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Court Executive Development Program is a life-changing experience that encourages pride, passion, and the pursuit of excellence in court administration. I am deeply grateful that Evie Lancaster from the Administrative Office of the Courts encouraged me to participate in this comprehensive program. I am also humbled and appreciative of the support that I received from the Nevada Supreme Court and Ron Titus, State Court Administrator. In preparing for this endeavor, I was inspired by the brilliance of Geoff Gallas and Dan Straub, two giants in their fields. I was also assisted tirelessly by Toni Grainer and Joan Cochet from the National Center for State Courts. Additionally, I would like to offer my thanks to Gene Flango, who became my advisor midway through the project and who was able to steer me to its successful completion. Closer to home, my project required constant assistance and information from those court employees who process protection orders. I want to acknowledge JoNae Scott, Sonia McCants, and Jim Vilt who helped me understand the “nuts and bolts” of handling these cases. The law clerk staff of the Justice Court also gave me constant support. Thank you to Sandra Zarcone, Brent Earl, and Mike Kovac. Moreover, words cannot express the deep admiration that I have for the dedicated and talented justices of the peace of the Las Vegas Justice Court: Judge Anthony Abbatangelo Judge Deborah Lippis Judge Melanie Andress-Tobiasson Judge Nancy Oesterle Judge Karen Bennett-Haron Judge Melissa Saragosa Judge Joe Bonaventure Judge Joseph Sciscento Judge Eric Goodman Judge Diana Sullivan Judge William Jansen Chief Judge Ann Zimmerman I respect each and every one of them, and I hope that my project and recommendations will make their jobs a little easier. I would also like to acknowledge District Court James Bixler who took a chance on me when I was a recent law school graduate. He welcomed me into the Justice Court family and motivated me to pursue my current career. Finally, I must express my deep and undying love for my family. My father, Michael Tommasino, and his wife, Lorena; my sister, Tracy Burns; my brother, Kevin Chapman; my niece, Samantha Maciech; my nephew, Michael Maciech; my aunt, Angela Tommasino; my grandmother, Frances Tommasino; and my wonderful son, Anthony, are the pillars of my existence. This project is dedicated to the memory of my mother, Audrey Chapman, who never stopped believing in me. Her impact on my life has been profound and wonderful. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... 11 II. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 15 III. LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................ ……... 17 A. Protection Orders Generally............................................................................ 17 B. Stalking Generally............................................................................................. 21 C. The Nature and Effect of Stalking................................................................... 23 IV. METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................... 27 A. The Nevada Court System................................................................................ 27 B. The Las Vegas Justice Court............................................................................ 29 C. TPO Jurisdiction in the Las Vegas Justice Court.......................................... 31 1. Orders for Protection Against Stalking and Harassment.................. 34 a. The Substantive Offenses Involved.......................................... 34 b. The Protection Order Process.................................................. 36 2. Orders for Protection Against Workplace Harassment..................... 40 a. The Substantive Offense Involved.......................................... 40 b. The Protection Order Process.................................................. 41 3. Orders for Protection Against Harm to Minors................................. 45 a. The Substantive Offenses Involved.......................................... 46 b. The Protection Order Process.................................................. 46 D. Specific TPO Case Statistics for the Las Vegas Justice Court...................... 47 E. Review of 2008 TPO Files................................................................................. 48 F. Customer Service Survey.................................................................................. 53 3 G. Court Staff Survey............................................................................................ 54 H. Current Limitations.......................................................................................... 55 V. FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS......................................................................... 56 A. The Five Most Common Dispositions.............................................................. 57 1. The Order Denying................................................................................ 57 a. Substantive Denials.................................................................... 58 (1) “Not Stalking or Harassment”..................................... 58 (2) “Denied--File in Family Court”................................... 58 (3) “Denied--This is a Landlord/Tenant matter.”……… 59 (4) “Denied--This is a Criminal matter.”.......................... 59 (5) Denial for Lack of Jurisdiction.................................... 59 b. Denials Based upon Some Perceived Deficiency in the Filing...................................................................................... 60 (1) Incompleteness............................................................... 60 (2) “John Doe” Defendants................................................ 61 2. The Withdrawn TPO Request.............................................................. 62 3. The Granted Temporary Order........................................................... 63 4. Setting an Initial TPO Request for Hearing........................................ 63 a. The Notice Problem................................................................... 63 b. The “Hybrid” Disposition......................................................... 64 5. Setting an Extended TPO Request for Hearing.................................. 65 B. The Most Common Relationships Between Applicants and Adverse Parties........................................................................................................ 66 1. “The Battle of the -Exes”....................................................................... 68 4 2. Disputes Between Neighbors................................................................. 69 3. Disputes Between Acquaintances/Friends........................................... 70 4. Disputes Between Coworkers................................................................ 70 5. Landlord-Tenant Disputes.................................................................... 71 6. Disputes Between Roommates.............................................................. 71 7. Miscellaneous Categories of Relationships.......................................... 72 8. Relationships That Are Not Defined or Otherwise Discernible................................................................................................... 74 C. Statistics about the Adverse Party................................................................... 74 1. The “Confidential Information Sheet”................................................ 74 2. Selection of Specific Traits.................................................................... 76 3. Sex........................................................................................................... 77 4. Ethnicity.................................................................................................. 78 D. Cases Involving Weapons................................................................................. 79 E. Departmental Statistics..................................................................................... 81 F. Time to Disposition by Department................................................................. 82 1. Orders Processed Without Hearing..................................................... 85 2. Dispositions After Hearing.................................................................... 86 a. Continuances.............................................................................. 86 b. “Hybrid” Dispositions............................................................... 86 c. The “Deal with It Later” Disposition....................................... 87 G. Motions.............................................................................................................. 87 1. Motions to Dissolve and Orders to Show Cause................................. 87 2. Motions to Modify.................................................................................. 89 5 H. Issues Encountered in the Processing of Court Paperwork.........................