Woman Files for Restraining Order Against Police Officer Who's Investigating Her Boyfriend for Robberies--and Guess What Happens?
February 5th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesIn the amazing story below, a woman sought a restraining order against a police detective who was investigating her boyfriend for a string of burglaries. It's a clever way for a suspect or possible co-conspirator to derail a police investigation. And of course, since we have very little judicial oversight on restraining orders, the judge just went ahead and rubberstamped the order anyway.
The writers, Cary Spivak and Dan Bice, see the story as humorous, but it's no joke to all of the innocent men who are tossed out of their homes by false restraining orders. Spivak and Bice can be contacted by phone at (414) 223-5468 or e-mail at sb@journalsentinel.com. Their blog is www.jsonline.com/links/spiceblog.
The judge was Court Commissioner David Pruhs. The story is a couple years old. Thanks to Mark, a reader, for sending it.
Woman enlists court to ditch the law
Cary Spivak and Dan Bice
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
October 15, 2006
There are many ways to avoid the cops: Some folks run, some lie and others hide. But one creative Milwaukee woman came up with a novel idea, one that police hope never catches on.
She got a temporary restraining order in family court against a detective.
"I’ve had suspects talk about doing this before, but this is the first time I ever saw it," Milwaukee County sheriff’s Detective John Davis said last week. "I was somewhat amused by it, but it was a little aggravating."
The creative strategy was tried by Latoya Anderson, a west side resident who Davis said is the girlfriend of a man he wants to question about a string of burglaries. The first time Davis went to Anderson’s home, the man — whom he declined to name — wasn’t there. But Anderson reached him on her cell phone. Not surprisingly, the man declined to stop over to chat with the detective.
The next day, Davis and a Milwaukee detective returned. This time nobody would let them in, even though Davis said it looked like somebody was home.
Anderson’s response: She rushed to the courthouse, filed a petition accusing Davis of harassment and received a temporary restraining order banning him from harassing her or coming near her home. Thousands of similar orders are issued annually.
Anderson’s petition actually makes a pretty compelling case for why she needed protection from what sounded like an abusive ex.
"John came over banging, knocking, kicking at the door," she wrote. "He was looking through my blinds. He took the plates off my car. He also had my car towed. He was calling my house asking for someone who does not live there."
Davis’ plea — guilty.
"All of those things were accurate," Davis said. "But she left out the part that I was a detective with the Sheriff’s Department, and I was with a detective from the city."
(Actually, it was the city cop who had the car towed because the license plates were from a different vehicle.)
Guess the devil is in the details.
Anderson’s omissions left Court Commissioner David Pruhs in the dark. He quickly signed the order and set a hearing for two weeks later.
"It seems to me there would have been a totally different result if I had had a whiff that he was a detective," Pruhs said. "Those are things that people would do in harassing situations."
Give Anderson, who could not be reached for comment, an A for effort but an F for execution.
County lawyer Tim Schoewe rapidly filed a motion to quash the restraining order, and Pruhs held a hearing — this time with Davis testifying — two days after it was issued.
"It was an interesting way to try to derail an investigation," Schoewe said.
When Pruhs found out what Davis does for a living, he tossed the restraining order, noting that the "court finds she (Anderson) was intentionally misleading."
And Davis, a cop for more than 30 years, is still working the case and hunting for Anderson’s boyfriend.
"I’ve done some surveillance on the house," he said.
And if the man comes back to Anderson’s home?
"If I think he’s there, we’ll bang on the door."
"));
19 queries. 0.344 seconds.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Again no penalty for filing a false protection order, even against a policeman.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
How far can we take this? Kids filing restraining orders against teachers for bugging them about homework? Filing a restraining order against a bill collector? The more this happens, the more mesningless such orders become...
February 5th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Martha Stewart went to prison for obstruction of justice, which this clearly is. It is also grounds for civil liability for "abuse of process" and "malicious prosecution." The difference? The Stewart case involved securities -- where not even a woman's word is more powerful that money. This case involves "DV" -- where the word of a woman must be accepted as true, unless and until she is proved to be a liar. Then, her "word" must still be tolerated. We would not want to discourage the next woman from lying about DV, would we? Then why do we want to discourage the next woman from lying about stock trading? The equations: Woman = good, Money = better; Woman = good, Man = bad.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Bearing false witness.
Old game, new stupid system.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
A follow-up comment:
This is why, when women claim to have been treated as "property" in past times, they actually had it better than men. Traditionally, and continuing in many respects to this very day, the law protected property MUCH more aggressively than the physical welfare of men, in terms of the relative harshness of criminal penalties imposed.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
As long as our society permits a mechanism where a public "servant" (sic), who may be elected or appointed, and who might lose their job for making a mistake, to make decisions about whether a person is "at risk" or not, we are going to have this problem.
I do not see judicial oversight of private-party-against-private-party restraining orders EVER being able to be reigned in without fundamental structural change.
To you raise the proof standard, someone gets killed, and the standard gets lowered again.
To raise the proof standard, of course, you have to have vastly greater amounts of professional time allocated to each case, meaning vastly more expense.
Better judicial oversight of these moral quandries is not going to help any more than giving judges more discretion in sentencing non-violent offenders in the war on drugs.
The answer on the latter is to legalize the drugs -- i.e., remove the economic rewards from BOTH sides of the war on drugs. The answer on the former is to remove the economic rewards to false accusations, and allow the exisint tort system of remedies for defamation create some downside for the false accuser. The lack of a reward (economic upside), plus some economic downside for the false accuser, would mitigate the problem.
More judicial oversight will only create a vast number of restraining-order trials, which will become the next great highly contested, money-bleeding, lawery-and-expert billing spree at the expense of parents.
That my friends, would be a mistake.
If someone is in danger from a person they have a relationship with they can do the same things one does when they are in danger from a mugger. Get away and call the police.
The state doesn't give you a free house devoid of muggers simply because you are afraid of possible muggers.
Neither should a family court give the same -- and at the expense of the often falsely accused -- to an accuser who has a massive economic motive to lie about their "fear".
February 5th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Mom seeks restraining order (order of protection) against manager of celebrity daughter.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0205083spears1.html
Same celebrity woman filed restraining order against boyfriend.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4166182
Woman extends restraining order against Randy Moss just before Super Bowl.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5goASQ8EkrBo1QUxF2F5DjGOQhUNgD8UF5IAO0
Prosecutors drop assault case against former NBA star Latrell Sprewell but keeps the restraining order remains in effect.
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5i2TsFnmLXMYYuHTJtGv0X0WHqLbw
February 5th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
i guess the blinders got in the way...
February 5th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Unbelievable.
Just shows how much of a shambles the restraining order system is. I have no doubt that the judge knew that she was doing this to protect her boyfriend. However, he couldn't refuse to file a restraining order, then he'd be 'encouraging men to get away with their abuse'
February 5th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Just shows how much of a shambles the restraining order system is. I have no doubt that the judge knew that she was doing this to protect her boyfriend. However, he couldn't refuse to file a restraining order, then he'd be 'encouraging men to get away with their abuse'
The devil is in the details.
Was anyone else aware that it was unlawful for this detective to carry or own a firearm for the period of time between his being served with the PPO and the dismissal by the courts? If so inclined, that issue could of been pressed, and hard.
But yes, a PPO without a trial where the defendant is available to present his side of the case is above the 2nd Amendment.
So much for habeas corpus.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
You gotta admit that she's one crafty chick. This is really some outrageous stuff. Well, I'm afraid that this is going to become a trend. Women aren't going to be able to resist this one either. The government created this man-eating plant and it finally turned on them.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
How did they get a hearing two DAYS later instead of the scheduled two WEEKS??? A lot of men are holed up in their car (or in motel rooms they cannot afford) waiting for their day in court to give their side.
DanH
February 5th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
In the State of Washington, unless the parties are related by blood or marriage, Family Court cannot issue any kind of order such as this to a non-related person. In Superior Court, you must show up in person (no phone-ins) and the respondant has some rights that would have forstalled her doing that here.
DanH
February 5th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Since this story is so old, do we have an update? Was she punished for this? If not, she should have been. Out of control.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:21 am
I admire the creativity.
Don't see where any false report was issued. She only failed to identify the perpetrator as a cop. No real crime in that.
From what I can read, seems that there was a bit - a quite a bit - of police abuse in this case. The Milwaukee police have regularly and routinely been accused of police abuse over the years. Where is the outcry over that possibility?
Oh, that's right. This is a mens rights forum where woman is always bad and men are always victims. Silly me. I'm on the wrong forum.
Doc
February 6th, 2008 at 2:14 am
"It seems to me there would have been a totally different result if I had had a whiff that he was a detective." Just an example of taking whatever is said as fact. Precisely why investigation/questioning should be mandatory. Ironically it was a lack of investigation that hindered an investigation.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:42 am
I love it when the system deconstructs itself.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Doc said:
From what I can read, seems that there was a bit - a quite a bit - of police abuse in this case. The Milwaukee police have regularly and routinely been accused of police abuse over the years. Where is the outcry over that possibility?
Have you ever noticed that those who accuse police of abuse are those that were caught in wrong doing? Many police men do not like to stop women for traffic violations because it is easy for these women to accuse them of propositioning them.
Was it not Miiwaukee just recently a woman accuse two police officers of raping her because they told her to leave a house where she was harassing the owners. (they could have arrested her on the spot) The only reason these officers still have their jobs and are not in jail themselves is that GPS and the dash cam showed they were both across town making a traffic stop at the very time she said she was being raped by them. Feminist groups complained that the police had the gall to charge her with false informing because she did "all the right things"
Yes I know there is abuse by the police but not every accusation is true.
I would also suggest you read some of the other blogs here on Glen's site where a former police officer admitted that he wanted a man who was accused of domestic violence to "resist arrest" so he could beat him legally.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:33 am
From what I can read, seems that there was a bit - a quite a bit - of police abuse in this case. The Milwaukee police have regularly and routinely been accused of police abuse over the years. Where is the outcry over that possibility?
Oh, that's right. This is a mens rights forum where woman is always bad and men are always victims. Silly me. I'm on the wrong forum.
A similar thought occurred to me that it seemed strange for a policeman to say he was going to "kick at the door" and tow away vehicles. The professional thing to do would be to issue a warrant for the woman for questioning, engage in routine surveillance, and issue charges of obstruction of justice where appropriate.
In answer to your point about this being a men's right forum and blinded, blah blah blah. You're got a point: If you want a forum where they're going to kneejerk blame an apparently white cop of police abuse and an apparently black woman being the a victim, you have several hundred such web sites to post that opinion on. But then you'd be just another anonymous voice in the crowd.
Unlike THOSE sites, you're able to express that opinion even if it's "politically incorrect". If that isn't good enough, don't let the door slam your butt on the way out...
February 6th, 2008 at 10:50 am
This could have a chilling effect on the real victims, who are always women.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Where, exactly, is the abuse that Doc accuses the police detective of?
The City cop had the car towed because the plates didn't match the vehicle.
The detective raised his voice and peered through the blinds because she was obviously inside and hiding. That she knew what had happened (she described the incident for the restraining order) shows she obviously WAS inside and hiding at the time, so he was at least right in his supposition.
Is Doc perhaps suggesting that all police officers should tiptoe around, politely knocking on doors and making no real efforts to identify the whereabouts of wanted felons / suspects?
If he/she is, then I'll thank her to live in a neighbourhood as far removed from mine as possible so that she can suffer the inevitable consequences on her own.
I'll make sure not to commiserate when she complains about the 5th burglary she's suffered in as many weeks.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
James,
The detective basically went on a fishing trip looking for ways to punish her for not "cooperating" so he looked around and found some misplaced plates. A similar thing happened during the Duke case when a taxicab driver testified that one of the alleged rapists had an airtight alibi. He was picked up for a long forgotten arrest warrant. Gee, how "convenient."
Next, you've overlooked the cop "kicking" her door. Unless he's trying to force entry as part of a warrant, that's harassment. On the contrary, she shouldn't have filed a restaining order but rather have just filed a grievance for police harassment and rightly so.
It's cases like that that make me suspicious as a juror when I'm called to decide criminal cases.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:02 am
PolishKnight,
While I don't doubt that he took the car as a 'punishment,' he wouldn't have been able to tow the car had the plates not matched the vehicle. His reasons for spotting the illegal plates doesn't make them any less legal.
As for the banging and kicking, there are a lot of ways someone can do either. Thumping on the door to say "we know you're in there" doesn't constitute harrassment in my opinion, and a kick can be anything from a full-scale attempt to cave in the door (unlikely) to a frustrated lash of the foot at the door as he's leaving (technically 'wrong' but hardly harassment).
Ultimately, if she hadn't tried to avoid him at the door (thereby giving him pretty reasonable suspicion that she's hiding in with the boyfriend) then she'd have saved his time and tax-payers' money. Co-operating with the police is not an unreasonable obligation in a civil society.
The cops on the Duke case fell a long way short of the standard. That none have, to date, been punished for their many short-comings is nothing short of scandalous. One shouldn't, however, allow cases like Duke to cloud one's judgement or opinion of law enforcement in general. Especially not to the point where it may affect the verdict doled out in a criminal case.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
So what you are saying the cops have a constitutional right to invade ones' home, without a warrant. I have have a cop now that has been harassing my wife and I for over a year. I have tried every legal means to make him stop but to no avail. I have tried a restraining order against him but the court rejects it. This all started when him and I got into an argument over crooked police officers. I then ended up in jail for disorderly conduct, which was thrown out of court. A year later my wife dialed 911 instead of 411 and told the officer's of the mistake but guess what, he again took me into custody. During this time I have witnessed that he travels my street several times a week and occasionally will park his car in front of my house. What am I to do? The courts will not help me nor will his commanding officers help me.