Title: Stalking and Domestic Violence
Series: Report to Congress
Author: Violence Against Women Office
Published: May 2001
Subject: stalking, domestic violence
90 pages
196,608 bytes

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

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file.
To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-
3420 (877-712-9279 For TTY users).

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

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Violence Against Women Office

Stalking and Domestic Violence

Report to Congress

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

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft
Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs
World Wide Web Home Page
www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Violence Against Women Office
World Wide Web Home Page
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo


NCJ 186157

For additional copies of this report, please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
(800) 851-3420
e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

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

Stalking and Domestic Violence

Report to Congress 

May 2001

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

Table of Contents

Preface

Foreword

Chapter 1: Cyberstalking--A New Challenge for Law Enforcement

Chapter 2: Law Enforcement and Prosecution Response to Stalking--Results of
a National Survey

Chapter 3: Victim Needs

Chapter 4: State Stalking Legislation Update--1998, 1999, and 2000 Sessions

Chapter 5: Federal Prosecutions

Notes

Appendix A: Stalking and Related Cases

Appendix B: Bibliography


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

Preface

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IV of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), improved
our country's response to violence against women, including domestic violence,
stalking, and sexual assault. VAWA and its recent reauthorization, the Violence
Against Women Act of 2000, have transformed criminal and civil justice system
efforts to address these serious crimes, bringing communities together to move
forward to end violence against women.

Police officers, prosecutors, victim advocates, and members of the judiciary are 
collaborating to leverage the coercive power of the criminal justice system to
enhance victim safety and hold offenders accountable. To help support these
initiatives, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (OJP),
has provided tools and resources to implement coordinated community
responses to violence against women and to fund basic research to expand
understanding of stalking and domestic violence.

This report to Congress is part of an ongoing commitment to share information
about strategies that show promise in the field and about the development of
laws addressing stalking. It is produced in response to Subtitle F of VAWA,
which directs the U.S. Attorney General to submit a report on these issues.

Our knowledge about domestic violence and stalking continues to grow as a
result of innovative community-based strategies across the country. OJP is
committed to addressing these problems aggressively on several fronts by
providing resources to communities, supporting research to help understand
and develop more effective responses to stalking, and increasing public
awareness of these crimes, their consequences, and the resources available for
victims. 

OJP's Violence Against Women Office is supporting the newly established
National Resource Center on Stalking, which will collect information about
promising antistalking practices and assist communities in adapting these to their
needs. The National Institute of Justice continues to conduct research on
effective strategies to combat violence against women, including domestic
violence and stalking. 

State and Federal legislatures continue to pass legislation to hold stalkers
accountable. Since enactment of State antistalking laws, the number of stalking
cases reported to law enforcement has increased substantially. Similarly,
Federal prosecutors are enforcing the Federal antistalking statute by bringing
charges against stalkers in appropriate cases. These statutes and related
prosecutions communicate the message that stalking is criminal and will not be
tolerated. 

OJP thanks the many individuals involved in the preparation of this report for
their time and commitment, and gratefully acknowledges the invaluable
contributions of the many criminal justice professionals and victim services
providers contacted for this report.

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

Foreword

The passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994 signified a
major shift in our national response to domestic violence, stalking, and sexual
assault crimes. For the first time, violent crimes against women were addressed
in relation to the more general problem of gender inequality. VAWA seeks to
eradicate violence against women at all levels.

Domestic violence is about control, power, and domination. While stalking may
be perpetrated by strangers, acquaintances, or current or former intimate
partners, stalking is most often committed against women in the domestic
violence context. When victims of domestic violence leave their abusers,
abusers often stalk victims in an effort to regain control. Because of this
increased risk of "separation violence," victims fear for their lives and for the
safety of their children.

The passage of stalking legislation by all 50 States and the District of Columbia
provides some measure of protection during this critical period. On the Federal
level, the seriousness of stalking was addressed when Congress passed the
interstate stalking law.[1] Stalking must be understood as part of the domestic
violence continuum and must be addressed forcefully.

With the growth of the Internet, cyberstalking crimes are increasing. The
Internet has become a useful tool for stalkers.[2] The veil of anonymity allows
the perpetrator to exercise power and control over the victim by threatening the
victim directly or posting messages that lead third parties to engage in
harassment and threatening behavior toward the victim.

This report to Congress provides information concerning stalking and the
effectiveness of State antistalking efforts and legislation. Strong enforcement of
stalking and cyberstalking laws, combined with a better understanding of the
dynamics underlying this criminal behavior, will enable us to address these
crimes more effectively.

As we work to eliminate all forms of violence against women, we gain
knowledge regarding the nature and scope of these crimes. Domestic violence
occurs on a continuum that ranges from emotional abuse to homicide, and the
escalation of violence often follows a predictable pattern. Our goal is to
formulate responses that break the cycle of violence through effective
intervention at the earliest stages. Understanding the nature of domestic violence
can help prevent the further escalation of criminal activity.

At the U.S. Department of Justice, we are firmly committed to facilitating the
awareness of and developing training on stalking. We have awarded funds to
communities for programs dedicated to developing effective antistalking
protocols and to others who seek to replicate promising practices in this area.
We are working closely with the U.S. Attorneys' Offices to bring prosecutions
under the Federal interstate stalking law when applicable. Together, through
increased communication and collaboration, we will send the message that
these crimes will not be tolerated.

Stalking creates a psychological prison that deprives its victims of basic liberty
of movement and security in their homes. We must address these crimes
effectively by working together to protect stalking victims and to hold
perpetrators responsible for their criminal behavior. To eradicate stalking, we
must act with the full force of the law.

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

Chapter 1 
Cyberstalking--A New Challenge for Law Enforcement

The Internet and other telecommunications technologies are advancing virtually
every aspect of society and every corner of the globe. They are fostering
commerce, improving education and health care, promoting participatory
democracy in the United States and abroad, and facilitating communications
among family and friends, whether across the street or around the world.
Unfortunately, many of the attributes of this technology--low cost, ease of use,
and its anonymous nature, among others--make it an attractive medium for
fraudulent scams, child sexual exploitation, and a new concern known as
"cyberstalking." 

This chapter explores the nature and extent of cyberstalking; surveys the steps
industry, law enforcement, and others are taking to address the problem;
analyzes the adequacy of current Federal and State laws; and provides
recommendations on how to improve efforts to stop this growing problem.

As discussed in this chapter, the nature and extent of cyberstalking are difficult
to know precisely. In addition, while some law enforcement agencies are
responding aggressively, others are not fully aware of the problem and lack the
expertise and resources to identify and pursue cyberstalking cases. Similarly,
while some Internet service providers (ISPs) have taken affirmative steps to
crack down on cyberstalking, others have not, and there is a great deal more
that industry can and should do to empower individuals to protect themselves
against cyberstalking and other online threats.

Indeed, current trends and evidence suggest that cyberstalking is a serious
problem that will grow in scope and complexity as more people use the Internet
and other telecommunications technologies. The analysis and recommendations
contained in this chapter offer a framework for an initial response to the
problem. These recommendations, however, are only a first step. Important
advances can be made if industry, law enforcement, victim support groups and
service providers, and others work together to develop a more comprehensive
and effective response to this problem. Ultimately, however, the first line of
defense will involve industry efforts that educate and empower individuals to
protect themselves against cyberstalking and other online threats, along with
prompt reporting to law enforcement agencies trained and equipped to respond
to cyberstalking incidents.

What Is Cyberstalking?

Although there is no universally accepted definition of cyberstalking, the term is
used in this chapter to refer to the use of the Internet, e-mail, and other
electronic communication devices to stalk another person. Stalking generally
involves harassing and threatening behavior that an individual engages in
repeatedly, such as following a person, appearing at a person's home or place
of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects,
or vandalizing a person's property. Most stalking laws require the perpetrator
to make a credible threat of violence against the victim. Others include threats
against the victim's immediate family, and still others require only that the
alleged stalker's course of conduct constitute an implied threat.[3] While some
conduct involving annoying or menacing behavior might fall short of illegal
stalking, such behavior may be a precursor of stalking and violence and should
be treated seriously.

Nature and Extent of Cyberstalking

An Existing Problem Aggravated by New Technology

Although online harassment and threats can take many forms, cyberstalking
shares important characteristics with offline stalking. Many stalkers--online or
offline--are motivated by a desire to exert control over their victims and will
engage in similar types of behavior to accomplish this end. As with offline
stalking, the available evidence (which is largely anecdotal) suggests that the
majority of cyberstalkers are men and the majority of their victims are women,
although there have been reported cases of women cyberstalking men and of
same-sex cyberstalking. In many cases, the cyberstalker and the victim had a
prior relationship, and the cyberstalking began when the victim attempted to
break off the relationship. However, there also have been many instances of
cyberstalking by strangers.

The fact that cyberstalking does not involve physical contact may create the
misperception that it is more benign than physical stalking. This is not
necessarily true. As the Internet becomes an evermore integral part of our
personal and professional lives, stalkers can take advantage of the ease of
communication as well as increased access to an enormous amount of personal
information that is available through the Internet. Indeed, a cyberstalker can
easily locate private information about a potential victim with a few mouse
clicks or keystrokes. In addition, the ease of use and the nonconfrontational,
impersonal, and sometimes anonymous nature of Internet communications may
remove disincentives to cyberstalking. Put another way, where a potential
stalker may be unwilling or unable to confront a victim in person or on the
telephone, he or she may have little hesitation sending harassing or threatening
electronic communications. Furthermore, as with physical stalking, online
harassment and threats may foreshadow more serious behavior, including
physical violence.

Despite the many similarities between offline and online stalking, the Internet
and other communications technologies provide new avenues for stalkers to
pursue their victims. A cyberstalker may send repeated, threatening, or
harassing messages by the simple push of a button. More sophisticated
cyberstalkers use programs to send messages at regular or random intervals
without being physically present at the computer terminal. California law
enforcement authorities say they have encountered situations in which victims
repeatedly received the message "187" on their pagers--the section of the
California Penal Code for murder. In addition, a cyberstalker can dupe other
Internet users into harassing or threatening a victim by, for example, posting a
victim's name, telephone number, or e-mail address on a bulletin board or in a
chat room with a controversial message or invitation, resulting in the victim
receiving multiple e-mails in response. Each message--whether from the actual
cyberstalker or others--will have the intended effect of frightening or harassing
the victim, with little effort on the part of the cyberstalker. Additionally, because
of the lack of direct contact between the cyberstalker and the victim, law
enforcement may have difficulty identifying, locating, and arresting the offender.

The anonymity of the Internet also provides new opportunities for would-be
cyberstalkers. A cyberstalker's true identity can be concealed from the recipient
by using different ISPs or by adopting different screen names. More
experienced stalkers can use anonymous remailers that make it all but
impossible to determine the true identity of the source of an e-mail or other
electronic communication. A number of law enforcement agencies report they
are confronting cyberstalking cases involving the use of anonymous remailers.

Anonymity is a great advantage for the cyberstalker. Unknown to the victim,
the perpetrator could be in another State, around the corner, or in the next
cubicle at work. The perpetrator could be a former friend or lover, a total
stranger met in a chat room, or simply a teenager playing a practical joke. A
victim's inability to identify the source of the harassment or threats can be
particularly ominous, and the veil of anonymity might encourage the perpetrator
to continue these acts. In addition, the substantial amount of personal
information available through the Internet can make cyberstalking relatively easy
to do. Numerous Web sites provide unlisted telephone numbers and detailed
directions to a home or office. For a fee, other Web sites promise to provide
social security numbers, financial data, and other personal information.

Evidence Suggests Cyberstalking Incidents Are Increasing

Although comprehensive nationwide data on the extent of cyberstalking in the
United States do not yet exist, there is a growing body of statistics available
from law enforcement agencies, as well as from some ISPs, that compile
information on the number and types of complaints of harassment and threats
involving ISP subscribers. There is increasing anecdotal and informal evidence
on the nature and extent of cyberstalking, and research addressing offline
stalking may provide insight into the scope of the problem. According to the
most recent National Violence Against Women Survey, which defines stalking
as involving instances where the victim felt a high level of fear:[4]

o One out of every 12 women (8.2 million) in the United States and 1 out of
every 45 men (2 million) have been stalked at some time in their lives.

o One percent of all women and 0.4 percent of all men had been stalked during
the 12 months preceding the survey.

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

Offline Versus Online Stalking: A Comparison

Major Similarities

o The majority of cases involve stalking by former intimates, although stranger
stalking occurs in the real world and in cyberspace.

o Most victims are women; most stalkers are men. 

o Stalkers are generally motivated by the desire to control the victim.

Major Differences

o Offline stalking generally requires the perpetrator and the victim to be in the
same geographic area; cyberstalkers may be across the street or across the
country.

o Electronic communication technologies make it much easier for a
cyberstalker to encourage third parties to harass or threaten a victim (e.g., a
stalker will impersonate the victim and post inflammatory messages on bulletin
boards and in chat rooms, causing viewers of these messages to send
threatening messages back to the victim).

o Electronic communication technologies also lower the barriers to harassment
and threats; a cyberstalker does not need to physically confront the victim.

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

o Women are far more likely than men to be victims of stalking--nearly 80
percent of stalking victims are women. Men are far more likely to be stalkers,
comprising 87 percent of the stalkers identified by victims participating in the
survey.

o Women are twice as likely as men to be victims of stalking by strangers and
eight times as likely to be victims of stalking by intimates.

In the United States today, more than 80 million adults and 10 million children
have access to the Internet. Assuming the proportion of cyberstalking victims is
even a fraction of the proportion of persons who have been the victims of
offline stalking, there may be potentially tens or even hundreds of thousands of
victims of cyberstalking incidents each year in the United States.


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

Actual Cyberstalking Incidents

o In the first successful prosecution under California's new cyberstalking law,
prosecutors in the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office obtained a guilty plea
from a 50-year-old former security guard who used the Internet to solicit the
rape of a woman who rejected his romantic advances. The defendant terrorized
his 28-year-old victim by impersonating her in various Internet chat rooms and
online bulletin boards, where he posted, along with her telephone number and
address, messages that she fantasized of being raped. On at least six occasions,
sometimes in the middle of the night, men knocked on the woman's door saying
they wanted to rape her. The former security guard pleaded guilty in April 1999
to one count of stalking and three counts of solicitation of sexual assault. He
faces up to 6 years in prison.

o A local prosecutor's office in Massachusetts charged a man who, using
anonymous remailers, allegedly engaged in a systematic pattern of harassment
of a coworker, which culminated in an attempt to extort sexual favors from the
victim under threat of disclosing past sexual activities to the victim's new
husband. 

o An honors graduate from the University of San Diego terrorized five female
university students over the Internet for more than a year. The victims received
hundreds of violent and threatening e-mails, sometimes receiving four or five
messages a day. The graduate student, who has entered a guilty plea and faces
up to 6 years in prison, told police he committed the crimes because he thought
the women were laughing at him and causing others to ridicule him. In fact, the
victims had never met him.

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

Anecdotal evidence from Federal law enforcement agencies further indicates
that cyberstalking is a serious and growing problem. At the Federal level,
several dozen matters have been referred, usually by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), to U.S. Attorneys' Offices (USAOs) for possible action. A
number of these cases have been referred to State and local law enforcement
agencies because the conduct does not appear to violate Federal law.

Local law enforcement agencies are beginning to see cases of cyberstalking as
well. The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office estimated recently that e-mail
or other electronic communication is a factor in approximately 20 percent of the
roughly 600 cases referred to its Stalking and Threat Assessment Unit. The
chief of the Sex Crimes Unit in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office also
estimates that about 20 percent of the unit's cases involve cyberstalking. The
Computer Investigations and Technology Unit of the New York City Police
Department estimates that almost 40 percent of its caseload involves electronic
threats and harassment--and virtually all of these have occurred in the past 3 or
4 years. 

ISPs are also receiving a growing number of complaints about harassing and
threatening behavior online. One major ISP reported receiving approximately
15 complaints per month of cyberstalking, in comparison to virtually no
complaints of cyberstalking just 1 or 2 years ago.

Finally, as part of a large study on sexual victimization of college women,
researchers at the University of Cincinnati conducted a national telephone
survey during the 1996-97 academic year of 4,446 randomly selected women
attending 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education. For the survey, the
researchers defined a stalking incident as one in which a respondent answered
positively when asked if someone had "repeatedly followed you, watched you,
phoned, written, e-mailed, or communicated with you in other ways that
seemed obsessive and made you afraid or concerned for your safety." The
study found that 581 women (13.1 percent) had been stalked and reported a
total of 696 stalking incidents (the latter figure exceeds the number of victims
because 15 percent of the women experienced more than one case of stalking
during the survey period). Of the 696 stalking incidents, 166 (23.9 percent)
involved e-mail. Thus, 25 percent of stalking incidents among college women
could be classified as involving cyberstalking.[5]

Current Efforts to Address Cyberstalking

The Law Enforcement Response

Cyberstalking is a relatively new challenge for most law enforcement agencies.
The first traditional stalking law was enacted by California in 1990. Since then,
some law enforcement agencies have trained their personnel on stalking and
have established specialized units to handle stalking cases. Nonetheless, many
agencies are still developing the expertise and resources to investigate and
prosecute traditional stalking cases. Only a handful of agencies throughout the
country have focused attention or resources specifically on the cyberstalking
problem.[6]

Law Enforcement Response: Awareness and Training Are Key Factors

Based on recent informal surveys of law enforcement agencies, it appears that
the majority of law enforcement agencies have not investigated or prosecuted
cyberstalking cases. However, some agencies--particularly those with units
dedicated to stalking or computer crime offenses--report having large
cyberstalking caseloads.

The disparity in the activity level among law enforcement agencies can be
attributed to a number of factors. First, it appears that most cyberstalking
victims do not report the conduct to law enforcement because they feel either
the behavior has not reached the point of being a crime or that law enforcement
will not take them seriously. Second, most law enforcement agents have not
been trained to recognize the serious nature of cyberstalking and to investigate
such offenses. Unfortunately, some victims have reported that rather than open
an investigation, law enforcement agencies have advised them to come back if
the cyberstalkers confront or threaten them offline. In several instances, victims
have been told by law enforcement simply to turn their computers off.

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

Cyberspace has become a fertile field for illegal activity. With the use of new
technology and equipment which cannot be policed by traditional methods,
cyberstalking has replaced traditional methods of stalking and harassment. In
addition, cyberstalking has led to offline incidents of violent crime. Police and
prosecutors need to be aware of the escalating numbers of these events and
devise strategies to resolve these problems through the criminal justice system.

--Linda Fairstein, Chief 
Sex Crimes Prosecution Unit 
Manhattan District Attorney's Office

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

Another indication that many law enforcement agencies may be unaware of the
magnitude of the cyberstalking problem is the wide disparity in the number of
cases reported in different jurisdictions across the country. For example, one
state attorney general's office in a Midwestern State indicated that it had been
receiving approximately one inquiry a week regarding cyberstalking cases and
knew of at least a dozen cases prosecuted throughout the State during the
preceding year. In contrast, the attorney general's offices in neighboring States
reported they had never received an inquiry about cyberstalking. Although
some disparity among jurisdictions would be expected, the size of the disparity
suggests that not all law enforcement agencies are receiving the training or
expertise needed to identify and respond to the problem.


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

Lack of Training Hinders Law Enforcement Response

A woman filed a complaint with her local police agency after receiving
numerous telephone calls in response to a notice posted on the Web by a man
claiming her 9-year-old daughter was available for sex, and providing her home
phone number with instructions to call 24 hours a day. The agency's response
was that she should change her telephone number. Instead she contacted the
FBI, which opened an investigation. It was discovered that the local police
agency did not have a computer expert and the investigative officer had never
used the Internet. The local agency's lack of familiarity and resources may have
resulted in a failure to understand the seriousness of the problem and the
response options available to law enforcement.

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

Law Enforcement Response: Jurisdictional and Statutory Limitations May
Frustrate Some Agencies

Cyberstalking also raises jurisdictional issues for law enforcement that can
frustrate agencies' attempts to address it. In many cases, the cyberstalker may
be in one city or State and the victim may be in another, making it more difficult
(and sometimes all but impossible) for the local authority to investigate the
incident. Even when a law enforcement agency is willing to pursue a case
across State lines, cooperation from agencies in neighboring States may not be
forthcoming when the conduct is limited to harassing e-mail messages and no
actual violence has occurred. A number of cases of suspected cyberstalking
have been referred to the FBI and USAOs because questions of jurisdiction
kept local law enforcement from pursuing the investigation.

The lack of adequate statutory authority further limits law enforcement's
response to cyberstalking incidents. At least 16 States have stalking statutes
that explicitly cover electronic communications,[7] and cyberstalking may be
covered under general stalking statutes in other States. In the remaining States,
however, cyberstalking may not meet the statutory definition of stalking and
therefore may not be considered a crime. In many cases, cyberstalking involves
threats to kill, kidnap, or injure a person or damage his or her reputation or
property and may be prosecuted under Federal or State laws that do not relate
directly to stalking.

Federal law may also limit law enforcement's ability to track down stalkers and
other criminals in cyberspace. In particular, the Cable Communications Policy
Act of 1984 (CCPA) prohibits the disclosure of cable subscriber records to
law enforcement agencies without a court order and advance notice to the
subscriber (47 U.S.C. ss 551(c), (h)). As more and more individuals turn to
cable companies as their ISPs, CCPA is posing a significant obstacle to the
investigation of cybercrimes, including cyberstalking. For example, under
CCPA, a law enforcement agency investigating a cyberstalker who uses a cable
company for Internet access would have to notify the cyberstalker that the
agency has requested his or her subscriber records, thereby jeopardizing the
criminal investigation. While it is appropriate to prohibit the indiscriminate
disclosure of cable records to law enforcement agencies, the better approach
would be to harmonize Federal law by providing law enforcement access to
cable subscriber records under the same privacy safeguards that currently
govern law enforcement access to records of electronic mail subscribers under
18 U.S.C. ss 2703. Moreover, special provisions could be drafted to protect
against the inappropriate disclosure of records that would reveal a customer's
viewing habits.

Law Enforcement Response: The Challenge of Anonymity

Another complication for law enforcement investigation of cyberstalking cases
is the presence of services that enable anonymous communications over the
Internet. Although anonymity provides important benefits for Internet users,
including protection of privacy, as discussed earlier, it also provides
cyberstalkers with advantages over both their victims and law enforcement.

Anonymity on the Internet can be obtained in one of two ways. The first is by
buying Internet services that allow individuals to create free electronic
mailboxes through a Web site. While most ISPs request identifying information
from users of this service, they almost never authenticate or otherwise confirm
the information. In addition, payment for these services is typically made in
advance through a money order or other nontraceable form. As long as
payment is received in advance, the service is provided to the account holder
who may remain unknown. The second way is by using e-mail servers that
purposefully strip identifying information and transport headers from the e-mail.
By forwarding e-mail through several of these services serially, a stalker can
make the message completely anonymous. The availability of both types of
service makes it relatively easy for cyberstalkers to send anonymous
communications but very difficult for victims, service providers, and law
enforcement to identify the communications source.

Law Enforcement Response: Specialized Units Show Promise in Combating
Cyberstalking


A critical step in combating cyberstalking is understanding stalking in general.
Because offline and online stalking share some characteristics, many strategies
and techniques that have been developed to combat stalking in general often
can be adapted to cyberstalking situations.

At the Federal level, the Justice Department has established a number of task
forces and special crime units that focus solely on high-technology crimes.
These units do not address cyberstalking alone, but they have the necessary
expertise in computers and the Internet to assist in the investigation of
cyberstalking when it arises. For example, the FBI has computer crime squads
throughout the country, as well as the National Infrastructure Protection Center
in Washington, D.C., to ensure cybercrimes are properly investigated.
Additionally, they have computer analysis and response teams to conduct
forensic examinations on seized magnetic media. Similarly, in 1996, the Justice
Department established the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
within the Criminal Division, which is a unit with highly trained personnel who
remain on the cutting edge of new technology and investigative techniques. In
addition, each U.S. Attorney's Office contains experienced computer crime
prosecutors who help investigate and prosecute a variety of computer crimes,
including cyberstalking. They work closely with State-level special divisions that
have been established in several State attorney generals' offices to focus on
computer crimes.

Some larger metropolitan areas, such as Los Angeles and New York City,
have seen numerous incidents of cyberstalking and have created special crime
units to investigate and prosecute these cases. The Los Angeles Stalking and
Threat Assessment Team combines special sections of the police department
and district attorney's office to ensure properly trained investigators and
prosecutors are available when cyberstalking cases arise. In addition, the unit is
given adequate resources, including computer hardware and advanced training,
which are essential for investigating and prosecuting these technical cases.
Similarly, the New York City Police Department's Computer Investigation and
Technology Unit provides regular training for police officers and prosecutors
regarding the intricacies of cyberstalking investigations and prosecutions. The
training focuses on understanding how chat rooms operate, how to obtain and
preserve electronic evidence, and how to draft search warrants and subpoenas.

The programs in New York City and Los Angeles both ensure that
enforcement personnel have the resources and training needed to fight
cyberstalking. Traditional law enforcement techniques for surveillance,
investigation, and evidence gathering require modification for use on computer
networks and often require the use of unfamiliar legal processes. Law
enforcement at all levels must be properly trained to use network investigative
techniques and legal processes while protecting the privacy of legitimate users
of the Internet. Just as a burglar might leave fingerprints at the scene of a crime,
a cyberstalker can leave an "electronic trail" on the Web that properly trained
law enforcement personnel can follow back to the source.

Cyberstalking is expected to increase as computers and the Internet become
more popular. Accordingly, law enforcement at all levels must become more
sensitive to cyberstalking complaints and devote the necessary training and
resources to allow proper investigation and prosecution. By becoming
technologically proficient and understanding stalking in general, agencies will be
better prepared to respond to cyberstalking incidents in their jurisdictions. In
addition, State and local agencies can turn to their local FBI office or USAO
for technical assistance. Also, computer crime units and domestic violence units
should share information and expertise, because many cyberstalking cases
include elements of both computer crime and domestic violence. Finally, law
enforcement must become more sensitive to the fear and frustration
experienced by cyberstalking victims. Proper training should help in this regard,
but law enforcement at all levels should take the next step and place special
emphasis on this problem. Computers and the Internet are becoming
indispensable parts of America's culture, and cyberstalking is a growing threat.
Responding to a victim's complaint by saying "turn off your computer" or
"change your telephone number" is not acceptable.

Industry Efforts

Although the Internet industry has tried to combat abusive electronic
communications overall, it has not addressed cyberstalking in particular. Most
major ISPs have established an address to which complaints of abusive or
harassing electronic mail can be sent (generally, this address is abuse@[the
ISP's domain]). In addition, these providers almost uniformly have provisions in
their online agreements prohibiting abusive or harassing conduct through their
service and stipulate that violations of the policy will result in termination of the
account.

In practice, however, ISPs have focused more on assisting their customers in
avoiding annoying online behavior, such as receiving unsolicited commercial
e-mail (spamming) or large amounts of e-mail intentionally sent to an individual
(mail bombing). Less attention has been paid to helping victims of cyberstalking
or other electronic threats. For some ISPs, the procedures for lodging
complaints of online harassment or threats are difficult to locate, and their
policies about what constitutes a violation of service agreements are generally
not helpful. In addition, many ISPs do not inform their customers about what
steps, if any, the ISP has taken to followup on customer complaints. These
problems--hard-to-locate complaint procedures, vague policies about what
does and does not constitute prohibited harassment, and inadequate followup
on complaints--may pose serious obstacles to cyberstalking victims who need
help.

Online industry associations respond that providing such protection to their
customers is costly and difficult. Although they recognize that larger ISPs have
begun to commit resources to dealing with harassment online, they caution that
the costs of imposing additional reporting or response obligations on ISPs may
make it difficult for small or entrepreneurial ISPs to continue providing service
at competitive rates. For example, the Commercial Internet Exchange, whose
members carry approximately 75 percent of United States backbone traffic,
cautions that no attempt to impose reporting requirements should be made
unless fully justified by the record. However, according to the same group, the
decentralized nature of the Internet would make it difficult for providers to
collect and submit such data. Accordingly, evidence of the scope of the
cyberstalking problem is likely to be defined primarily by growing anecdotal
evidence with limited factual basis to determine whether the phenomenon is
growing, static, or declining.

Industry Efforts: Educating and Protecting Consumers

Despite the difficulty in fully defining the scope of the cyberstalking problem, the
industry has made notable efforts to inform consumers about ways to protect
themselves online. Such information is principally focused on protecting children
and consumers on the Internet. For example, since 1996, the Internet Alliance,
one of the key Internet industry groups, has worked with the Federal Trade
Commission and government agencies on Project OPEN (Online Public
Education Network). Project OPEN provides information about fraud, parental
controls, and privacy protection. Although this information is not specifically
relevant to cyberstalking, much of the advice about protecting children and
safeguarding privacy while online may be of assistance to individuals who want
to use the Internet while being protected against potential cyberstalkers. More
recently, a number of industry organizations have joined together to develop
GetNetWise.Com--a single, comprehensive online resource to help parents and
children use the Internet in a safe and educational manner.

Other similar industry efforts have been announced to address aspects of
computer-related crime. For example, the Justice Department and the
Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) announced the
Cybercitizen Partnership in March 1999. This partnership is intended to boost
cooperation between industry and government, expand public awareness of
computer crime issues among children and adolescents, and provide resources
for government to draw on in addressing computer crime. The industry has also
responded to the complaints of parents who are worried about the content
available to their children over the Internet. The One Click Away initiative gives
parents important information about protecting their children in one central
location. Similar education and outreach efforts, approached through
cooperation between industry and government, may educate individuals
concerned about these issues and mitigate some of the dangers of
cyberstalking.

Other Internet industry sectors have begun to address aspects of the
cyberstalking problem. Many of their solutions focus on the ability of individuals
to protect themselves against unwanted communications. For example, most
Internet chat facilities offer users the ability to block, squelch, or ignore chat
messages or "paging" from individuals who are attempting to annoy or threaten
them. Similarly, many e-mail users have tools that allow them to block e-mail
from individuals who are attempting to harass or annoy them. Such a solution
may be useful in situations where the communications are merely annoying.
Unfortunately, such a solution is less appropriate when threatening
communications are received, because victims who never "receive" the threat
may not know they are being stalked and may be alerted, for the first time,
when the stalker shows up to act on the threat.

In another type of response, providers have set up gated communities for
individuals, families, and children. The techniques used by these communities
are still in the developmental stages and range from specialized servers, which
allow potentially objectionable content to be filtered at the server, to designated
areas for children and teens, which place restrictions on the amount or types of
personal information that will be provided to others. Individuals who are
concerned about being stalked may find refuge in these communities.

While these efforts all reflect important initiatives for self-protection, both
industry and government representatives agree that a key component of
addressing the cyberstalking problem is education and empowerment. If
individuals are given direction about how to protect themselves against
threatening or harassing communications, and how to report incidents when
they do occur, both the industry and law enforcement will be in positions to
cooperate in conducting investigations.

Industry Efforts: Cooperation With Law Enforcement

Both industry and law enforcement benefit when crime over the Internet is
reduced. In particular, the Internet industry benefits significantly whenever
citizen and consumer confidence and trust in the Internet are increased.
Accordingly, both industry and law enforcement recognize the need to
cooperate more fully with one another in this area. Industry representatives
have noted that contact between industry and law enforcement--particularly in
the area of harassment--is sporadic and episodic. Industry representatives, who
were consulted as part of the preparation of this chapter, indicated their
willingness to participate in training efforts for law enforcement. Law
enforcement personnel--particularly on the State and local levels, who are often
the first responders to cyberstalking complaints--should engage industry
representatives in dialogue and take advantage of the expertise offered by the
industry in designing training programs. Closer cooperation between law
enforcement and industry will ensure that law enforcement officers know whom
to call at the ISPs and how to proceed when they receive a complaint, and
ISPs will have a contact in law enforcement when they receive a complaint that
warrants intervention.

Adequacy of Existing Laws

State Cyberstalking Laws

Fewer than one-third of the States have antistalking laws that explicitly cover
cyberstalking. California, for example, only recently amended its stalking statute
to cover it. The amended law was used to prosecute a 50-year-old former
security guard who pleaded guilty to one count of stalking and three counts of
solicitation of sexual assault after using the Internet to solicit the rape of a
woman who rejected his romantic advances. Although general stalking statutes
in some States may cover cyberstalking, all States should review their laws to
ensure they prohibit, and provide appropriate punishment for, stalking through
the Internet and other electronic communications.

Federal Cyberstalking Laws

Federal law provides a number of important tools to combat cyberstalking.
Under 18 U.S.C. ss 875(c), it is a Federal crime, punishable by up to 5 years
in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, to transmit any communication in
interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure another person.
Section 875(c) applies to any communication transmitted in interstate or foreign
commerce--including threats transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce
through telephone, e-mail, beepers, and the Internet.

Although 18 U.S.C. ss 875(c) is an important antistalking measure, it has
limited application. First, it applies only to communications of actual threats and
cannot be used in a case where a stalker engaged in a pattern of conduct
intended to harass or annoy another (absent some threat). Also, it is not clear
that it would apply to situations where a person harasses or terrorizes another
by posting messages on a bulletin board or in a chat room encouraging others
to harass or annoy another person, as in the California case.

Certain forms of cyberstalking also may be prosecuted under 47 U.S.C. ss
223. One provision of this statute makes it a Federal crime, punishable by up to
2 years in prison, to use a telephone or telecommunications device to annoy,
abuse, harass, or threaten any person at the number called.[8] The statute also
requires that the perpetrator has not revealed his or her name (see 47 U.S.C. ss
223(a)(1)(C)). Although this statute is broader than 18 U.S.C. ss 875, covering
both threats and harassment, Section 223 applies only to direct communications
between the perpetrator and the victim. It would not reach a cyberstalking
situation if a person harasses or terrorizes another person by posting messages
on a bulletin board or in a chat room encouraging others to harass or terrorize
that person. Moreover, Section 223 is only a misdemeanor, punishable by not
more than 2 years in prison.

The Interstate Stalking Act, signed into law in 1996, made it a crime for any
person to travel across State lines with the intent to injure or harass another
person and, in the course thereof, to place that person or a member of that
person's family in a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury (see 18
U.S.C. ss 2261A). 

Finally, a law was passed in October 1998 that protects children against online
stalking. The statute, 18 U.S.C. ss 2425, makes it a Federal crime to use any
means of interstate or foreign commerce (such as a telephone line or the
Internet) to communicate with any person with the intent to solicit or entice a
child into unlawful sexual activity. While this new statute provides important
protections for children, it does not reach harassing phone calls to minors
absent a showing of intent to entice or solicit the child for illicit sexual purposes.

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

First Amendment and Other Legal Considerations

All 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government have
passed laws that criminalize stalking to address the serious harms and dangers
that result from stalking, including the fear of violence and loss of privacy and
control suffered by the victim. In addition to these direct harms, stalking is
frequently a precursor to physical violence against the victim. By its nature,
however, stalking is not a crime that can be defined with a particular discrete
set of acts. Frequently, stalking consists of a course of conduct that may involve
a broad range of harassing, intimidating, and threatening behavior directed at a
victim. The conduct can be as varied as the stalker's imagination and ability to
take actions that harass, threaten, and force himself or herself into the life and
consciousness of the victim. As new technologies become available, as is the
case with the Internet and cyberstalking, stalkers adapt those technologies to
new ways of stalking victims.

As a result of the breadth of conduct potentially involved in stalking, antistalking
statutes need to be relatively broad to be effective. At the same time, because
of that breadth and because stalking can involve expressive conduct and
speech, antistalking statutes must be carefully formulated and enforced so as
not to impinge on speech that is protected by the First Amendment. This is true
with regard to cyberstalking laws, which frequently involve speech over the
Internet. The Internet has been recognized as an important tool for protected
speech activities. See, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S.
844, 850-52, 870 (1997).

The fact that stalking behavior (including cyberstalking) may implicate important
issues of free speech does not eliminate the significant public interest in its
criminal regulation or suggest that all criminal regulation would be prohibited by
the freedom of speech guarantees of the First Amendment. The First
Amendment does not prohibit any and all regulations that may involve or have
an impact on speech. Of particular relevance to stalking, the U.S. Supreme
Court has recognized that governments may criminalize true threats without
violating the First Amendment. See, e.g., Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705
(1969) (per curiam). Stalking (and cyberstalking) generally involves conduct
reasonably understood to constitute a threat of violence, and such threats may
be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment. 

One of the recommendations in this chapter calls on States to review and
update their statutes to cover electronic communications in their stalking laws.
Care must be taken in drafting cyberstalking statutes to ensure that they are not
so broad that they risk chilling constitutionally protected speech, such as
political protest and other legitimate conduct. A carefully drafted statute can
provide broad protections against cyberstalking without running afoul of the
First Amendment. 

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

Federal legislation was enacted recently to fill the gaps in current law. Although
most cyberstalking cases will fall within the jurisdiction of State and local
authorities, there are instances--such as serious cyber harassment directed at a
victim in another State or involving communications intended to aid and abet
third parties in harassment or threats--where State law is inadequate, questions
of jurisdiction arise, or State and local agencies do not have the expertise or
resources to investigate and prosecute a case. (See page 41 for a description of
the Federal cyberstalking offense enacted as part of the Violence Against
Women Act of 2000.)

Recommendations

General Recommendations

o The law enforcement community, private industry, victim assistance
providers, and individuals must recognize that cyberstalking is a serious
problem--not only as a potential precursor to offline threats and violence, but
also as a serious invasion of an increasingly important aspect of people's
everyday lives. At the same time, it is important to note that many forms of
annoying and menacing activity on the Internet do not rise to the level of illegal
activity and are properly addressed by individuals and service providers without
recourse to law enforcement channels.

o The lack of comprehensive data on the nature and extent of cyberstalking
makes it difficult to develop effective response strategies. Future surveys and
research studies on stalking should, where possible, include specific information
on cyberstalking. Industry organizations can and should play a role not only in
increasing the amount of data on the cyberstalking problem but also in ensuring
that the data can be analyzed in a meaningful way.

Legislation Recommendations

o State legislators should review their existing stalking and other statutes to
determine whether they address cyberstalking and, if not, promptly expand
such laws to address cyberstalking.

o Federal law also should be amended to make it easier to track down stalkers
and other criminals in cyberspace while maintaining safeguards for privacy. In
particular, the Cable Communications Policy Act should be amended to
provide access to the same type of subscriber records, under the same
standards and privacy safeguards, as those for electronic mail subscribers under
18 U.S.C. ss 2703 (while maintaining strict limits on access to records that
reveal customer viewing habits).

Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Recommendations

o Law enforcement agencies and courts need to recognize the serious nature of
cyberstalking, including the close links between offline and online stalking.

o Law enforcement agencies need training on the nature and extent of the
cyberstalking problem, including specific training on the legal tools available to
address the problem, the need for and effectiveness of prompt action by law
enforcement agencies, the most effective techniques to investigate and
prosecute cyberstalking crimes, and the resources available to cyberstalking
victims.

o Law enforcement agencies with existing stalking or computer crime units
should consider expanding the mission of such units to include cyberstalking,
and law enforcement agencies that do not have a stalking section should
consider expanding their capabilities to address both offline and online stalking.
At the least, law enforcement agencies should understand the patterns
underlying stalking in general and be prepared to respond and intercede on
behalf of cyberstalking victims.

o Law enforcement agencies should use mechanisms for quickly and reliably
sharing information about cyberstalking incidents with other law enforcement
agencies, thereby making it less likely that a cyberstalker can continue
threatening behavior simply because neither the jurisdiction of the sender nor
the jurisdiction of the victim can prosecute the offender.

o U.S. Attorneys' Offices, in consultation with other Federal, State, and local
agencies, should examine the available resources and networks of investigators
and prosecutors with the expertise to handle cyberstalking investigations. These
include violent crime specialists, computer crime investigators and prosecutors,
computer forensic specialists, and victim-witness coordinators. The Law
Enforcement Coordinating Committees, which have been established in each
USAO and are designed to foster coordination among law enforcement
agencies, would be an appropriate body for addressing these issues.

o Law enforcement agencies should work more closely with victim advocacy
groups to identify cyberstalking patterns and victim experiences and to
encourage cyberstalking victims to report incidents to law enforcement
authorities.

Industry Recommendations

o The Internet and electronic communication industry should create an
industry-supported Web site containing information about cyberstalking and
what to do if confronted with this problem. Contact information for the major
ISPs should be included so that Internet users can easily report cyberstalking
cases after visiting this centralized resource. This recommendation could be
implemented by expanding the One Click Away initiative or through a
complementary but separate initiative focused on cyberstalking.

o The industry should develop additional means to empower individuals to
protect themselves against cyberstalking. Such means might include more
accessible and effective filtering and blocking options. While some major ISPs
already allow such options, others do not.

o The industry should develop training materials to help law enforcement
investigate and prosecute cyberstalking and related crimes. For example, a
short training video could be developed to increase awareness of the
cyberstalking problem and to provide law enforcement officers with essential
information on how to work with ISPs and others in the investigation of
cyberstalking cases.

o The industry should cooperate fully with law enforcement when they are
investigating cyberstalking complaints. It can do this, for example, by
immediately freezing and retaining data for law enforcement use on any potential
cyberstalking case.

o The industry should establish best business practices to address illicit activity
by terminating holders of fraudulent accounts.

o The industry should sponsor an Internet Security and Law Enforcement
Council of ISPs and other members of the Internet community to develop and
promote industry best business practices relating to security and law
enforcement issues (including cyberstalking), develop and distribute training
materials for law enforcement about the investigation and prosecution of
Internet crime, and promote more effective communication and cooperation
between industry and law enforcement in combating online criminal activity.

o The industry should establish and enforce clear policies that prohibit
cyberstalking and related behaviors, including terminating the accounts of
persons who violate such policies. While it appears that most of the larger ISPs
have such policies, some smaller ISPs do not. Representatives from the Internet
industry should consider establishing an industrywide code of conduct that
encourages all ISPs to adopt such procedures.

o The industry should establish clear, accessible, and understandable
procedures for individuals--customers and noncustomers--to register
complaints about use of a company's service to engage in cyberstalking.



o The industry should develop and widely disseminate educational materials to
customers and others on how to protect themselves online.

Advocate and Victim Services Provider Recommendations

o Victim services providers and advocates should provide direct services and
referrals to resources designed to assist victims of cyberstalking and work to
ensure that cyberstalking services are expanded to meet the needs of victims
and enhance their safety.

o Victim services providers and advocates should train domestic violence and
other advocates on Internet technology, the tactics used by cyberstalkers, and
how to respond to the specific needs of cyberstalking victims.

o Victim services providers and advocates should name the behavior as
cyberstalking and validate that a crime is occurring when working with
individual victims.

o Victim services providers and advocates should serve as catalysts in
community efforts to form partnerships among law enforcement, prosecution,
the judiciary, the medical community, and other community allies to address the
specific safety needs of cyberstalking victims and to hold offenders accountable
for their actions.

o Victim services providers and advocates should raise public awareness about
the devastating impact on cyberstalking victims of the tactics used by
cyberstalkers and the steps that can be taken to prevent and combat this crime.

o Victim services providers and advocates should inform public policy
decisionmaking.

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

Cyberstalking Resources Online

CyberAngels: A nonprofit group devoted to assisting victims of online
harassment and threats, including cyberstalking: www.cyberangels.org.

GetNetWise: An online resource for families and caregivers to help kids use the
Internet in a safe and educational manner. It includes a guide to online safety, a
directory of online safety tools, and directions for reporting online trouble:
www.getnetwise.org.


National Center for Victims of Crime: Through its toll-free national hotline, the
center provides victims with referrals to the nearest appropriate services in their
community, including crisis counseling and support groups, advocacy services,
and assistance with the criminal justice process. The center publishes bulletins
on a number of topics, including domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking:
www.ncvc.org.

National Cybercrime Training Partnership: This interagency Federal/State/local
partnership, led by the Justice Department with extensive support from the
Office of Justice Programs and the National White Collar Crime Center, is
developing and delivering training to Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies on how to investigate and prosecute computer crime. Information
about the partnership can be found through its Web site: www.cybercrime.org.

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: This nonprofit consumer information and
advocacy program offers consumers a unique opportunity to learn how to
protect their personal privacy. Its services include a consumer hotline for
reporting privacy abuses and for requesting information on ways to protect
privacy and fact sheets on privacy issues, including one entitled Are You Being
Stalked? Tips for Your Protection: www.privacyrights.org.

Search Group, Inc.: SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice
Information and Statistics, provides assistance to State and local criminal justice
agencies on information technology issues. SEARCH, through its National
Technical Assistance and Training Program, provides comprehensive, hands-on
training on computer crime investigations at its headquarters in Sacramento,
California, and at regional training sites around the country: www.search.org.

Working to Halt Online Abuse (WHOA): Founded by women to educate the
Internet community about online harassment, WHOA empowers victims of
online harassment and develops voluntary policies that systems administrators
can adopt to create an environment free of online harassment. WHOA
educates the online community by developing Web site resources, including the
creation of a safe- and unsafe-site list to enable users to make informed
decisions and providing information about how users can protect themselves
against harassment: www.haltabuse.org.

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

Protecting Yourself Against Cyberstalking and What To Do If You Are a
Victim

Prevention Tips

o Do not share personal information in public spaces anywhere online, nor give
it to strangers, including in e-mail or chat rooms. Do not use your real name or
nickname as your screen name or user ID. Pick a name that is gender and age
neutral, and do not post personal information as part of any user profiles.

o Be extremely cautious about meeting online acquaintances in person. If you
choose to meet, do so in a public place and take along a friend.

o Make sure that your ISP and Internet Relay Chat network have an
acceptable-use policy that prohibits cyberstalking. If your network fails to
respond to your complaints, consider switching to a provider that is more
responsive to user complaints.

o If a situation online becomes hostile, log off or surf elsewhere. If a situation
places you in fear, contact a local law enforcement agency.

What To Do If You Are Being Cyberstalked

o If you are receiving unwanted contact, make clear to that person that you
would like him or her not to contact you again.

o Save all communications for evidence. Do not edit or alter them in any way.
Also, keep a record of your contacts with Internet system administrators and
law enforcement officials.

o You may want to consider blocking or filtering messages from the harasser.
Many e-mail programs such as Eudora and Microsoft Outlook have a filter
feature, and software can be easily obtained that will automatically delete
e-mails from a particular e-mail address or that contain offensive words. Chat
room contact can be blocked as well. Although formats differ, a common chat
room command to block someone would be to type /ignore<person's screen
name> (without the brackets). However, in some circumstances (such as
threats of violence), it may be more appropriate to save the information and
contact law enforcement authorities.

o If harassment continues after you have asked the person to stop, contact the
harasser's ISP. Most ISPs have clear policies prohibiting the use of their
services to abuse another person. Often, an ISP can try to stop the conduct by
direct contact with the stalker or by closing his or her account. If you receive
abusive e-mails, identify the domain (after the "@" sign) and contact that ISP.
Most ISPs have an e-mail address such as abuse@<domain name> or
postmaster@<domain name> that can be used for complaints. If the ISP has a
Web site, visit it for information on how to file a complaint. 

o Contact your local police department and inform its officers of the situation in
as much detail as possible. In appropriate cases, they may refer the matter to
State or Federal authorities. If you are afraid to take action, there are resources
available to help you. Contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline,
1-800-799-SAFE (phone) or 1-800-787-3224 (TDD), or a local women's
shelter for advice and support.

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

Chapter 2 
Law Enforcement and Prosecution Response to Stalking--Results of a National
Survey

This chapter examines the criminal justice system's response to stalking across
the country by providing an overview of State laws and case law on stalking
and reporting the results of a national survey of law enforcement and
prosecution practices in this area.[9]

Survey of State Laws

Every State, and the District of Columbia, has enacted some type of stalking
law. In 12 States, conviction for a first offense of stalking is automatically a
felony, and in 23 States, a first offense of stalking may be a felony. In the
remaining 15 States, a first offense is a misdemeanor, but a repeat stalking
conviction is a felony.

Many States have statutes that address stalking-related conduct. Offenses
include harassment (25 States), threats and intimidation (35 States and the
District of Columbia), telephone threats or harassment (43 States), and letter
threats (20 States). Ten States provide enhanced felony penalties for
harassment or stalking of a minor.

Twenty-seven States provide for civil protection orders to be issued against
stalking, in addition to orders of protection against domestic violence. Violation
of a stalking protection order is a crime in 25 of these States and may be
criminal contempt of court in the other 2 States. In only five States can a
violation of the stalking order be treated as a felony; in many others, repeat
stalking in violation of an order is aggravated stalking and a felony. In addition,
in eight States, repeat violations of a stalking order can be a felony. In six
States, legislation provides for the entry of stalking protection orders into a
special statewide registry for these orders. Thirty-five States also have registries
for domestic violence protection orders, and these orders often include
antistalking provisions.

In 10 States where stalking can be a misdemeanor offense, State law authorizes
warrantless arrest for stalking, similar to that authorized for misdemeanor
domestic violence. In the 12 States where stalking is always a felony,
warrantless arrest is authorized where probable cause exists. In Mississippi,
warrantless arrest for misdemeanor stalking is authorized where the stalking is
against a spouse or former spouse.

Training of law enforcement officers on stalking is required only in Minnesota
and Nevada. However, 30 States require law enforcement training on domestic
violence, a requirement that may be administratively interpreted to include
stalking.

Case Law Review

As of August 2000, nearly 500 stalking and related cases prosecuted at the
Federal, State, and local levels had been identified (see appendix A). Cases
involving stalking were most common (157 cases), followed by harassment
(142 cases) and threats (122 cases). Only a few State stalking laws have been
struck down on the basis of overly vague terms such as "annoy" or lacking an
intent requirement. 

Double-jeopardy claims were another common challenge, typically where there
had been a previous finding of contempt of court for violation of a court order,
such as a protection order or an injunction. Rulings varied based on whether the
criminal offense and the contempt offense shared common facts. Where the
court found that the two offenses shared common facts, it ruled that a criminal
trial for both offenses violated the defendant's constitutional right not to be tried
twice for the same crime.

Harassment laws that are not limited to prohibitions on "fighting words," which
are not entitled to the same protection under the First Amendment as are other
kinds of speech, were the most vulnerable to constitutional challenge.[10]
However, courts held that telephone harassment laws were not required to
have such a limitation because of their invasion of privacy component. For
much the same reason, telephone harassment and threat laws commonly focus
on the intent of the caller to harass or threaten rather than the victim's response
to these messages. In fact, a few States do not require actual fear to result from
the harassment.

Despite the growing popularity of electronic communication, there are very few
reported cases involving this medium. Some of the cases indicate that courts
may be reluctant to apply old laws to this new means of delivering threats or
harassing communications without explicit statutory language addressing the use
of electronic communication to stalk, harass, or threaten.

Practitioner Surveys

Two hundred and four law enforcement agencies and 222 prosecution offices in
jurisdictions with populations of more than 250,000 were surveyed by mail in
November 1997. The survey asked what special efforts these agencies had
undertaken against stalking, including special units, training, and written policies
and procedures.[11] The survey found that all but seven of the police agencies
surveyed assign stalking cases either to their detective unit or to a specialized
unit, most commonly the domestic violence unit, or to a combination of
detectives and domestic violence investigators. A few agencies assign stalking
cases to their sex crimes unit. Only one has a specialized stalking unit.

Most of the prosecution offices surveyed similarly assign stalking cases to their
domestic violence unit. A significant minority (15 percent) split stalking case
duties between their domestic violence unit and another unit, usually the general
trial unit. Another important pattern is for stalking to be handled by a special
unit that is responsible for prosecution of domestic violence, sex crimes, and
other kinds of specialized cases such as child or elder abuse. Seven offices
have either a specialized stalking unit or an assistant or deputy prosecutor who
specializes in stalking cases.

Stalking training for police recruits is typically part of their domestic violence
training. About 13 percent of the agencies have specialized training on stalking
independent of domestic violence, although several offer both types of training.
Less than 15 percent of the police agencies do not offer stalking training to
recruits. Significantly, more than one-third do not provide inservice stalking
training to their officers. Slightly more than half reported that inservice training
on stalking is provided to all detectives or to special unit detectives.

Most of the prosecution offices surveyed (82 percent) provide some training on
stalking. About 25 percent of the offices provide inservice stalking training to all
their attorneys, and 17 percent provide stalking training to new attorneys. Most
of the latter agencies provide both inservice and new attorney training. More
than one-third of the offices limit their inservice training to special unit
prosecutors. Ten percent of the prosecution offices said that the only stalking
training their attorneys get is from outside training sources.

Fifty-seven percent of the police agencies surveyed have written policies and
procedures for handling stalking cases, most often as part of their domestic
violence protocols. Only 11 agencies have separate stalking protocols. A
slightly smaller proportion (50 percent) of prosecution offices said they had
written policies for prosecuting stalking cases. Only six offices have separate
stalking protocols, including one office with both policies and protocols.

The written comments provided by the respondents indicate that prosecutors in
several States have problems with the statutory "credible threat" requirement.
However, some prosecutors in these States did not report such problems. The
reasons for this difference may be related to methods of coordination between
law enforcement and prosecution in stalking cases. The need for training was
expressed by many respondents.

Field Studies

Site visits have been completed in six locations: the Los Angeles Police
Department's threat management unit, the Los Angeles County District
Attorney's stalking and threat assessment prosecution unit, the San Diego
County District Attorney's stalking prosecution unit, the San Jose Police
Department's stalking unit, the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office,
and the Colorado Springs Police Department. 

Preliminary findings from these sites show some significant similarities:

o Specialized stalking units provide expertise in identifying, investigating, and
prosecuting stalking crimes.

o Staffing of specialized units is essentially experimental, so central units share
jurisdiction over stalking crimes with other agency units, taking only the most
serious cases.

o Failure to identify stalking behavior is a continuing problem. All of the
specialized units devote considerable resources to training other criminal justice
personnel and educating the community.

o Because both stalking legislation and specialized stalking units are relatively
new, case management requires the development of new techniques for
investigation and for ensuring victim safety. Investigators and prosecutors of
stalking operate as problem solvers for tasks such as identifying who the stalker
is, how to prove stalking, and how to work with victims to collect evidence
while keeping them safe.

Training Programs

A number of jurisdictions provide training on stalking. A few jurisdictions have
had training for only their law enforcement officers, typically of a limited
duration (e.g., rollcall training). Many others have had more extensive training,
typically involving multidisciplinary audiences. Some prosecutors have provided
informal training to the judiciary on stalking issues through extensive filings of
motions and briefs that explain the nature of stalking and its impact on victims.

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

Chapter 3 
Victim Needs

In Stalking in America: Findings From the National Violence Against Women
Survey,[12] the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reported that stalking is much
more prevalent than previously thought, with an estimated 1 million women and
370,000 men stalked annually. The report found that stalking is most often
perpetrated against current or former intimate partners, with young women
between ages 18 and 29 as the primary targets. More recently, in the 2000
Report to Congress evaluating the STOP Violence Against Women Formula
Grants, the Urban Institute noted that stalking is the least understood of the
three crimes addressed by VAWA. Only eight States address stalking in their
STOP implementation plans.[13]

Based on these reports and the growing body of research on stalking and
domestic violence, the U.S. Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime
(OVC) convened a national focus group to gather information about the needs
of stalking victims. The focus group brought together stalking victims, victim
advocates, and victim assistance providers, as well as prosecutors and law
enforcement officers who have worked with stalking victims. Their discussion
explored the effects of stalking on victims' lives and how communities can better
address the needs of stalking victims. Participants who had been stalked
described the psychological and physical impact of the terrorizing tactics used
by their stalkers. Others shared information from their experiences in assisting
victims who had been stalked. Participants identified gaps in service provision
and barriers to accessing services and made recommendations for improving
aid to stalking victims and preventing future crimes. This chapter summarizes the
focus group discussion.

Victim Experiences of Stalking

The victims participating in the discussion described frightening accounts of
being stalked for as long as years at a time. One participant was stalked by a
man she had dated, two participants by former spouses, one by a former
employee, one by a stranger who was mentally ill, one by a neighbor, and one
by a cyberstalker of unknown identity. Their experiences varied based on
multiple factors: 

o Their relationship with the stalker.

o The mental health status of the stalker.

o The motivations of the stalker, if known. 

o The tactics used by the stalker.

o The frequency, intensity, and intrusiveness of the stalking acts.

o Whether the stalker also was targeting the victim's family and friends.

o The locations where the stalking acts occurred, such as workplace or college
campus. 

o The levels of support and services available in their communities.

o The accessibility of community support and services, which varied based on
factors such as disabilities, financial status, and gender.

o Whether the justice system was proactive on the victim's behalf.

o Whether the stalker's behavior stopped.

While the specific circumstances surrounding the stalking were unique, victims
recounted many similar issues and concerns. The most common result of the
stalking was the terror it evoked in victims.

Tactics Used to Control Victims

The motive for stalking is not sexual; rather, it is anger or hostility toward the
victim and a desire to control the victim. Participants in the focus group asserted
that their stalkers had systematically tried to subjugate them. Stalkers employ
various acts of terrorism over a period of weeks, months, years, or even
decades, which has the cumulative effect of eroding victims' self-confidence and
sense of control over their lives. Some acts convey subtle messages meant to
instill fear, while others brutally remind victims of their stalkers' dominance over
them. Discussion participants described a range of stalking tactics that included:

o Leaving or sending unwanted messages, such as sending letters written in
blood or cut-up pictures of victims. 

o Breaking into and vandalizing property, such as homes and cars.

o Following, harassing, and defaming victims.

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

One victim was stalked for 3 years, during which the stalker broke into her
house, beat her, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone. 

In addition to enduring beatings, vandalism to her house and car, and threats
of bodily injury, another victim received 6 to 10 unwanted letters a day from
her stalker, typically 8 pages long, written on both sides.

In another case, a stalker widely disseminated false information on the
Internet--claiming, among other things, that the victim was available for sex and
listing her address and phone number.

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

o Tracking down victims' contact information in cases in which victims try to
hide (e.g., through neighbors, employers, and even the police). 

o Impersonating people trusted by victims to obtain access to them.

o Threatening physical harm or death to victims, family members, and friends,
such as threatening to place a bomb in a victim's car or to kill a victim's lawyer.

o Killing victims' pets. 

o Kidnapping victims.

o Physically attacking and torturing victims. 

o Sexually assaulting victims.

o Using weapons to hurt or kill victims.

The control tactics described by focus group participants mirror those tactics
reported in the National Violence Against Women (NVAW) survey. The
survey found that the most common activities engaged in by stalkers include
following or spying on victims, standing outside victims' homes or places of
work or recreation (82 percent), making unsolicited phone calls (61 percent),
sending or leaving unwanted letters or other items (33 percent), vandalizing
property (29 percent), and killing or threatening to kill family pets (9
percent).[14]

Dealing With Fear 

In the face of the danger posed by their stalkers, victims typically confront the
daily task of keeping themselves and their family members safe. They may tell
family, friends, employers, coworkers, daycare providers, and criminal justice
system professionals about what is happening in attempts to seek assistance.
Like victims of sexual assault and domestic violence, stalking victims sometimes
spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to convince others to believe that
they are being stalked and are in real danger. Participants reported that victims
deal with varying reactions from others, including:

o Disbelief.

o Blaming the victim for causing the stalking, particularly in cases where victims
know their stalkers.

o Believing the victim but refusing to help or support the victim.

o Believing the victim, taking the victim's concerns seriously, and offering
support and assistance. 

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

A number of victims described stalking as a nightmare that invaded all aspects
of their lives. They spent a great deal of energy, time, and money just trying to
stay alive. 

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

The victims participating in the discussion all reported stalking or related abuses
to local police at some point. Some victims encountered disbelief or apathy
from officers. Others indicated that officers were sympathetic to their plight but
lacked the legal authority to intervene to stop the stalking. In some instances,
stalkers were eventually charged with crimes, convicted, and incarcerated. In
other cases, the stalkers' acts were not considered illegal and the victims fled
and relocated to other states.

According to the NVAW survey, 55 percent of the surveyed female victims
reported their stalking to the police.[15] When other victims were asked why
they chose not to report their stalking to the police, they stated that the stalking
was not a police matter, they thought the police would not be able to do
anything, or they feared reprisals from their stalkers. Victims often go to
extraordinary lengths to keep themselves safe, including:

o Changing all personal contact information such as phone and fax numbers,
postal and e-mail addresses, and driver's license and social security numbers. 

o Trying to restrict public access to their personal records such as getting their
names off all mailing lists and making sure companies and public agencies do
not give out their personal information.

o Getting devices that allow them to screen who has contact with them, such as
voice mail and caller I.D. boxes for telephones. 

o Changing their lifestyles and restricting their communication with others by, for
example, altering routines, discontinuing activities, switching jobs, finding new
schools for children, temporarily or permanently relocating, and ceasing
communication with family and friends.

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

One victim told of police officers being called to her home on numerous
occasions, listening to her accounts of being stalked, and taking written notes.
She found out only later that not one report had ever been officially filed.

Another victim said that she went to the police only after her stalker broke her
nose in broad daylight. They told her it would be too hard to prosecute her
case. She endured numerous attacks by the stalker after her initial interaction
with law enforcement, including one that left her hearing disabled.

One victim indicated that she received assistance from an FBI agent who got
involved in her case when the stalker started sending threatening letters to her
through the U.S. Postal Service. Prior to this intervention, however, she
endured years of increasingly violent stalking acts.

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

One victim spent approximately 2 years hiding from her stalker in basements of
people she knew, only going home every couple of days to feed her pets. Her
stalker eventually attempted to shoot her.

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

Promising Practice: Victim Safety

The Address Confidentiality Program, coordinated by Washington's Secretary
of State Office, helps stalking, sexual assault, and domestic violence victims
maintain address confidentiality by offering them a substitute mailing address.
For more information, call 360-586-4386 or 360-586-4388 (TTY) (Olympia,
WA).

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

Emotional and Physiological Reactions

In addition to living in fear and paying constant attention to maintaining their
physical safety, victims may experience harmful responses from individuals and
institutions, such as the criminal justice system or their workplace. Many spoke
of having reactions common to the experiences of other survivors of trauma,
including:

o Powerlessness/loss of control. 

o Feelings of desperation and isolation. 

o Self-blame or shame.

o Hypervigilance and overreactivity. 

o Sleep disturbances such as nightmares and difficulty falling asleep or staying
awake. 

o Avoidance of intimacy. 

o Weight loss or gain.

o Substance abuse.

o Intense fear of specific and general things such as being alone or in crowds. 

o Anxiety and depression.


o Spiritual crises.

These descriptions by the focus group victims also support the findings of the
NVAW survey concerning the psychological and social consequences of
stalking. About one-third of the women surveyed said they sought
psychological counseling as a result of their stalking victimization.[16] The
report also showed that stalking victims were significantly more likely than
members of the general population to be very concerned about their personal
safety and about being stalked, to carry something to defend themselves, and to
think personal safety has gotten worse in recent years.[17] Numerous
advocates and service providers at the focus group meeting indicated that the
stalking victims they encounter often experience posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD).

Lifetime Ordeal

The ongoing nature of the crime often makes it particularly difficult for victims to
recover from the effects of the stalking. While the victims participating in the
discussion were not currently being stalked, they all indicated that they live in
some degree of fear that the stalking will start anew. They expressed two
reasons for this fear:

o Even when the criminal justice system imprisons or institutionalizes stalkers, it
typically does not detain them forever.

o If victims successfully fled from their stalkers by relocating or changing their
identity, they are not fully confident that the stalkers will not eventually discover
their new location or identity.

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

One victim recounted that after serving a reduced jail sentence, the offender
resumed his stalking activities at a more frequent and violent level.

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

Secondary Victims

Participants stressed that stalking also affects secondary victims, such as
children and other family members, friends, co-workers, and other
acquaintances. These individuals can suffer because:

o They may become an object of the stalker's attacks as a way of controlling
the primary victim. 

o They may witness stalking acts against the primary victim. 

o They may be traumatized as they try to support the primary victim. 

o They may be affected indirectly as a result of the stalking (e.g., a friend misses
work in order to assist the victim, or children miss school because they are
fleeing the stalker). 

Participants were particularly concerned about the plight of children who
witness stalking or who are stalked themselves. A number of service providers
at the meeting expressed alarm that in situations where stalkers and victims have
children in common, courts sometimes require victims and their children to stay
in the same State as their stalkers.

Costs of Stalking to Victims 

Although there are no comprehensive nationwide data on the overall cost of
stalking, it was obvious from participant feedback that victims experience
enormous losses. The focus group cited several losses to victims that are
directly attributable to stalking: property damage and destruction, physical and
emotional injuries requiring short- and long-term medical and mental health
treatment, lost wages, expenditures related to hiding from the stalkers and
maintaining safety, and pain, suffering, and an overall reduced quality of life.

It can quickly become very costly for stalking victims to maintain safety and
health given the long-term nature of the crime and the multitude of tactics that
stalkers employ. However, the extensive financial assistance and/or resources
these victims require are simply not available in most communities. 

While many State crime compensation programs will cover some expenses
related to stalking (e.g., counseling), some States do not cover expenses unless
a violent incident has occurred. Most State programs do not cover the range of
victim expenses related to relocation, such as moving costs and lost wages.

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

As a consequence of stalking, one victim was fired from her job and forced to
declare bankruptcy.

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


The NVAW survey also addressed the cost of stalking. It reported that 26
percent of the stalking victims said their victimization caused them to lose time
from work. The survey authors attributed this lost time to the same reasons
identified by the focus group: to attend court hearings, meet with a psychologist
or other mental health professional, avoid contact with the assailant, and consult
with an attorney. Seven percent of the victims responding to the NVAW survey
said they never returned to work. For those victims who returned to work, the
average time missed due to their stalking victimization was 11 days.[18]

Professionals Who Can Help

Victims of stalking require a wide range of services from victim assistance
providers, victim advocates, justice system personnel, and other community
professionals. These service providers must:

o Validate that the stalking experienced by the victim is indeed occurring.

o Understand the complexity of the crime and the danger posed by stalkers.

o Have the capacity to provide effective intervention strategies that protect and
support victims and restrict stalkers. 

Service providers, victim advocates, and criminal justice personnel need to
provide immediate assistance to victims dealing with stalking. They must be
sensitive to the victim's need for confidentiality and ensure that information
pertaining to the victim is not released to a third party without the victim's
permission. After providing information on safety planning and resources, those
working with stalking victims need to respect and support the decisions victims
make concerning their own safety, even when they do not agree with victims'
decisions.[19]

Communities generally lack justice system personnel, victim assistance
providers, and advocates with sufficient knowledge or capacity to provide
specialized assistance for stalking victims, particularly for those who are being
stalked by strangers or acquaintances or through the Internet. The focus group
reported that other community professionals, such as doctors, mental health
providers, welfare and child protection workers, daycare providers, school
staff, employers, and church leaders, also lack knowledge about how to identify
and respond to stalking.

Response Tailored to Individual Circumstances

Victim experiences vary due to multiple factors, which must be taken into
account when developing effective responses to promote victim safety and
restrict the actions of stalkers. Specifically, victims emphasized that it is
important not to evaluate the stalker's behavior based on the victim's
relationship with the stalker. Instead, those working with stalking victims should
incorporate prior knowledge of each particular stalker with studied behavior
patterns of stalkers in general to develop a proper response. Because stalking
behavior is unpredictable, mechanisms must be in place to protect victims if and
when stalking escalates.

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

Promising Practice: Individualized Response

In 1996, the Victim Services Stalking Unit of the Queens, New York, Criminal
Court Program received funding from the New York Crime Victims Board to
provide services to stalking victims, regardless of whether the victim was
physically injured in the course of the stalking crimes. The unit offers stalking
victims crisis intervention and emotional support, assistance with assessing risk
and safety planning, defense kits, instruction on keeping logs of evidence for
court, and legal advocacy and case management throughout the criminal justice
system. It also offers victims fact sheets, brochures, and tip cards, written in
both English and Spanish. For more information, call 718-286-6084 (Kew
Gardens, NY).

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

Many communities have justice system and victim assistance resources set up
to help domestic violence victims assess their risk of danger and plan for safety.
These resources may or may not be sufficient to help victims who are stalked
by partners or former partners. 

Underserved Populations of Victims

Stalking victims may face further obstacles to getting help because their
communities are not prepared to provide the individualized attention and
services they need, due to factors such as: 

o Physical, cognitive, or emotional disabilities.

o Language capacity. 

o Cultural and ethnic background.


o Socioeconomic status.

o Place of residence, such as a rural area or college campus.

o Gender.

o Sexual orientation.

o Immigration status.

o Religion.

o Race.

Agencies need specific training and technology to assist these victims
successfully. For example, victims with hearing disabilities need to be able to
communicate with others to get help. Assisting agencies should have TTY/TDD
machines and the capacity to use them, know how to use phone relay systems,
and have quick access to sign-language interpreters. Victims with a wide range
of experiences, resources, or capabilities need individuals with appropriate
sensitivities and cultural backgrounds to advocate for them, particularly in
interactions with agencies not equipped to deal with victims from diverse
communities.

Interventions by the Criminal Justice System

Focus group participants recounted several types of criminal justice
interventions that may be effective in maintaining victim safety and holding
offenders accountable. They include:

o Swift and timely law enforcement response.

o Dispatchers who address victim safety first and officers who make every
attempt to arrest stalkers.

o Investigation of each case thoroughly and aggressively with the goal of
charging stalkers with the fullest range of crimes possible.  

o Assistance for victims in assessing stalkers' potential lethality and developing
safety plans.

o Instruction for victims on how to document stalking activities and use
equipment to collect evidence such as an answering machine, tape recorder,
camera, or video camera.

o Helping victims obtain restraining orders or referring victims to advocates
who can assist them in obtaining restraining orders and a quick response to any
violations of these orders. 

o Aggressive prosecution and court responses that keep stalkers away from
victims after charges are filed, such as high bonds that may help keep stalkers
incarcerated before or during trials, or requests that no contact be a condition
of pretrial release.

o Providing victims with information about stalking crimes, legal remedies, and
referrals to community resources.

o Helping victims keep personal information confidential throughout criminal
justice proceedings (e.g., a stalker's attorney should not be able to obtain
information that the stalker can use to threaten or harass the victim). 

o Proactive prosecution and court responses that involve effective strategies to
deter stalkers from further acts of stalking and to protect victims, such as the
electronic monitoring of stalkers as part of sentencing. 

o Notifying victims of stalkers' pending release from correctional or mental
facilities and the conditions of their probation, along with assistance in
post-release safety planning and protection.

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

Promising Practice: Interventions by the Criminal Justice System

The Dover, New Hampshire, Police Department recently received an Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant to establish an
antistalking unit and develop antistalking countermeasures. The
countermeasures will comprise the following: vertical investigation and
prosecution, streamlined investigation methods and use of technology to
enhance investigations, use of global positioning satellite technology to monitor
offenders, and development of victim safety strategies, including assistance with
relocation. To coordinate victim relocation, the unit will partner with one or
more agencies to help victims maintain safety during transitions to their new
locations. For more information, call 603-743-6140.

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


Some justice agencies and professionals have developed creative strategies to
combat stalking and help victims maintain their safety. However, many criminal
justice agencies lack the capacity to provide the comprehensive protection
needed by stalking victims, often due to a lack of effective antistalking laws or
agency protocols addressing stalking. There is also a general lack of
understanding about the seriousness of the issue. Gaps in responses, such as
incorrectly charging stalking crimes and failing to enforce restraining orders
against stalkers, can result in increased danger for victims.

Other barriers to effective criminal justice system intervention include stalker
manipulation of the justice system and heavy evidence collection burdens on
victims. For example, some stalkers successfully shift attention away from
themselves by claiming that victims are stalking them or by accusing victims of
child abuse or neglect. At the same time, they continue to stalk the victims.
Moreover, realizing their cases will not go forward in the criminal justice system
without sufficient evidence, many victims spend a lot of time and energy keeping
detailed logs of stalking incidents and collecting supporting documentation. In
fact, in order to obtain evidence that the crime of stalking has been committed,
victims often have to endure more stalking acts.

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

One participant said that stalking is one of the few crimes where victims who
want their cases to go forward are cast as their own investigators and required
to do things that professionals usually do.

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

In order to pursue justice system remedies, stalking victims often meet with
investigators and prosecutors, gather evidence, fill out paperwork, petition the
court for protection orders, and testify against stalkers. They may have to miss
work and lose wages, provide for childcare, and find transportation. Not only
does justice system involvement often present financial and logistical problems
for victims, it also may increase the danger they face. Stalkers may try to make
contact with victims as they travel to and from government buildings. Many
victims view incarceration of their stalker as a temporary reprieve and are
consumed by fear of their offenders' pending release. For some victims,
however, even incarceration fails to end the violence; their stalkers continue to
terrorize them from prisons or mental institutions by sending them threatening
letters. 

Assistance and Advocacy for All Victims


Although it is imperative that the criminal justice system provide stalking victims
with support, information, and advocacy throughout criminal proceedings,
victims also need nonlegal resources and assistance to maintain their safety,
such as: 

o Confidential emergency shelter for victims who are in immediate danger. 

o Crime-specific crisis intervention and support for victims, family, and friends.

o Assistance in cutting off stalkers' access to information about victims.

o Access to safety-enhancing equipment such as cell phones and body alarms.

o Help in protecting children and other dependents from stalkers, including
representation in family courts to revoke stalkers' custody rights. 

As long as they feel any risk, victims need ongoing advocacy and assistance
with planning for their safety, as well as access to resources to implement their
plans. Some victims may feel so endangered that they are compelled to make
significant changes to hide from their stalkers, such as altering their identity or
relocating to another area, and will need comprehensive assistance similar to
that provided through witness protection programs. 

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

Chapter 4
State Stalking Legislation Update--1998, 1999, and 2000 Sessions

States have enacted stalking legislation increasingly in each of the past 3 years.
In part, this reflects a growing understanding of the impact of stalking behavior.
New legislative topics are being addressed today that were not foreseeable
when legislators first addressed stalking crimes 10 years ago. The 3-year
review below summarizes stalking legislation from 1998 to 2000. It does not
include final information from about 12 legislatures that were still in session
when this review was completed in August 2000.

In 1998, the 44 State legislatures in session and the District of Columbia
enacted more than 150 new laws directed at violence against women. Of these,
legislatures in 11 States passed laws amending their stalking and related criminal
laws, including 2 States that passed new stalking injunction laws (see table 1).
In 1999, the 49 State legislatures in session and the District of Columbia
enacted more than 300 laws relating to violence against women. Of these,
legislatures in 26 States passed laws related to stalking (see table 2). By August
2000, 20 of the 44 State legislatures in session had enacted 27 stalking related
laws (see table 3). Overall, fewer than 200 enactments in the 2000 legislative
year addressed violence against women issues.[20]

Many other laws directed at helping victims of domestic violence also may
apply when stalking behavior is related to domestic violence. For example, laws
requiring that a jurisdiction give full faith and credit to other jurisdictions'
protection orders may apply either to orders prohibiting stalking as an element
of domestic violence or to antistalking orders. Similarly, laws providing
confidentiality for victims of domestic violence may be used by stalking victims
when the stalker is a current or former intimate partner under the State
domestic violence law. Hence, this list of new laws is not all inclusive.

The new laws explicitly directed at stalking behavior primarily change either the
definition of or the penalty for stalking or authorize courts to issue antistalking
protection orders. Other new laws authorize arrest of misdemeanor stalkers
and prohibit firearm possession when an antistalking order has been issued. 

Stalking and Related Cases: 1990-2000

Challenges to State Antistalking Laws

Although it has been only 10 years since the first stalking law was enacted, the
passage of these laws in all 50 States has sparked considerable litigation over
their constitutionality and scope. In reviewing and interpreting stalking laws,
courts often have drawn on cases involving similar penal statutes--those
criminalizing harassment and those involving threats.[21] These laws not only
deal with related behavior, but they also use the kind of terms and phrases
(e.g., annoy, repeatedly) that may be the subject of legal attack by defendants.
Thus, analysis of stalking laws must examine all three types of criminal laws and
statutes covering threats and harassment by telephone.

This review identified 464 State and 17 Federal stalking and related cases in
which challenges to antistalking and related laws were addressed.[22] Among
these were a total of 157 stalking cases, including 2 Federal cases. The stalking
cases involved predominantly constitutional challenges (124 cases in 34 States
and the District of Columbia), typically based on vagueness, overbreadth, and
related First Amendment issues. The review also looked at the relationship
between the stalker and the victim in cases in which the relevant statutes were
challenged. This review found that 56 of the 129 stalking cases for which
relationship information was available involved nonintimate partners. This
category included 14 cases involving stranger stalking; the other nonpartner
cases covered relationships such as neighbors, ex-employees,
psychiatrist-patient, judge-litigant, and landlord-tenant. In 38 cases, the
perpetrator had a dating relationship with the victim, including several in which
the perpetrator cohabited with the victim. In many states, stalking against a
former dating partner can be classified as domestic violence for the purpose of
obtaining a court order of protection. In 35 cases, the perpetrators stalked
former wives from whom they were divorced or separated. Almost all of the
reported cases in which statutes were challenged involved male stalkers.

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

Tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document
in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this
Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420
(877-712-9279 For TTY users).

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

Among the stalking-related cases, 56 involved harassment and 100 involved
threats. These cases were selected for review because they involved either an
important legal question with implications for interpretation of the stalking law at
issue or a situation similar to stalking in which questions of sufficiency of the
evidence affected the court decision. In 41 of the harassment cases and 36 of
the threat cases, the defendant raised constitutional challenges. There were 43
harassment and 64 threat cases involving statutory construction issues. Many of
the 56 harassment cases raised constitutional and statutory construction issues.

Other types of cases covered by this review included 20 telephone threat
cases, 85 telephone harassment cases, 8 letter threat or harassment cases, and
6 electronic threat or harassment cases. In addition, 47 cases involved
protection orders, typically stalking charges related to violation of a protection
order. Three cases involved civil suits for damages based on civil stalking laws
or some other invasion of privacy. Among these cases were 87 constitutional
law decisions and 51 statutory construction decisions. There were also five
cases in which defendants raised jurisdictional or other constitutional challenges
to Federal laws.

The list of cases in appendix A does not necessarily include all relevant
reported cases, although a significant effort was made to identify such
cases.[23] The review excluded reported decisions that involved solely
evidentiary issues where no constitutional or statutory interpretation issues were
decided.[24] Threat and harassment cases that were totally unrepresentative of
stalking concerns also were excluded, while included, for example, were threats
and verbal abuse of police officers.[25] 

In general, court decisions reviewed here measured constitutional challenges
based on overbreadth by whether the law prohibits acts rather than speech and
by whether it contains an intent to cause a specified harm. Vagueness claims
generally were evaluated based on whether the harmful acts barred by the law
are of such specificity that an ordinary person would not fail to understand what
is prohibited. Therefore, statutes that criminalize acts that include an intent to
cause harm as an element of the offense were most likely to pass constitutional
muster. This finding is consistent with the precepts underlying the Model
Anti-Stalking Code,[26] which limits its scope to acts that create a fear of
serious injury and include an intent component. 

The review in appendix A identifies each case by the name of the litigants, type
of law involved, and case citation and gives a brief summary of the court's
decision. Court rulings apply only to the specific statutory language used in the
case before the court. Thus, while there may be general agreement among the
courts within a State on a particular legal issue, such an agreement may not be
relevant to the language used in a particular State statute. With this important
caveat, review of the cases suggests the following:

1. Most stalking statutes meet constitutional minimums. Inclusion of an intent
requirement resolves most vagueness challenges. However, the use of terms
such as "annoy" or "alarm" without limiting definitions makes a law vulnerable to
challenge on the basis that it is unconstitutionally vague. Statutes have been
upheld that establish a rebuttable presumption of intent where there is evidence
that the victim requested that the stalking conduct end. Most statutes require
that the prohibited acts include a threat component, that the defendant intend to
cause or know of the victim's fear of death or serious injury and that the victim's
fear be reasonable.

2.  A finding of contempt for a violation of a protection order does not
generally prevent a second prosecution for the substantive stalking offense on
double jeopardy grounds. Some courts may require, however, that the acts
constituting stalking be different from those underlying the charge of violating the
order. There is no agreement among the courts that evidence of a prior
restraining order may be admitted to show the defendant's intent or course of
action, but a prior order may be used to show victim fear. Courts differ on
whether a collateral attack may be permitted on the validity of a court order in
protection order violation proceedings.


3. Harassment laws are vulnerable to a constitutional challenge where the
prohibited speech is not limited to "fighting words." "Fighting words" refers to
language that is likely to lead to a physical confrontation. Such language is
entitled to less protection under the First Amendment.

4. It is permissible for threat laws that include a reasonable fear requirement to
equate reckless behavior by the perpetrator with intent to cause reasonable fear
for the victim. In some States, actual terror is not required, merely that fear
would be reasonable under the circumstances and that there is an intent to
terrorize. An intent to carry out the threat is not an element of the crime, and
physical acts alone may constitute a threat. The absence in most States of
statutory language defining stalking to include implied threats is made even more
significant by the lack of court rulings in many of these same States interpreting
threat laws to include implied or conditional threats.

5. Harassment and threat laws apply to communications delivered through
third parties where such delivery may be reasonably anticipated or intended.

6. Telephone harassment and threat laws usually focus on the intent of the
caller, not the response of the person called, because invasion of privacy is an
implicit second element of the crime. Intent must be complemented by proof of
harassment or threatening acts. A law barring intent alone without regard to the
actual contents of the communication will be overbroad. A few courts do,
however, require that victim fear result from a telephone threat, depending on
the specific language of the statute involved. Courts also are split on whether
harassing intent must be the sole purpose of the communication or may coexist
with legitimate motives for the communication.

7. Prosecution of electronic harassment by fax, Internet, citizen band radio, or
other means may require specific statutory language prohibiting the use of these
medias to harass.

8. Jurisdiction or venue lies in the locality or State where a non-face-to-face
threat or harassment communication is received. Jurisdiction also may lie in the
location from which the communication was sent.

9. Intrastate communication that involves interstate intermediaries to deliver
the message confers Federal jurisdiction over the crime where a Federal statute
applies to the conduct.

In the first 10 years since stalking has been criminalized, most courts have
recognized the legitimacy of the States' interest in protecting citizens against
stalking. Accordingly, courts generally have affirmed the constitutionality of
antistalking legislation when weighed against First Amendment concerns.


However, a number of courts have struck down related laws that lack specific
fighting words requirements to narrow their scope. Courts also are beginning to
accommodate legal complications often resulting from the repetitive nature of
the stalking crime, in some cases allowing separate prosecutions for protection
order violations and substantive offenses. However, there is no broad
agreement across jurisdictions that these offenses may be tried separately
without raising double jeopardy concerns.

Unfortunately, at least two major gaps remain in States' legislative initiatives
against stalking and their interpretations by the courts. State legislatures and
courts frequently fail to recognize implied or conditional threats in their
construction of the stalking crime. Stalkers who follow, repeatedly contact, and
otherwise terrorize their victims in a persistent and even obsessive manner may
slip through the cracks of the criminal justice system if they refrain from spelling
out their threats. Such legislative loopholes need to be addressed.

In addition, current stalking legislation lacks explicit bars to harassment via
electronic media such as telephones, fax machines, e-mail, and the Internet. By
and large, courts are not interpreting older legislation to cover recently
developed communications technologies. Such narrow interpretation of
antistalking codes does not cover cyberstalking and other modes of high-tech
terrorization. Thus, many States may need to enact specific legislative bans on
the use of such media for stalking purposes. When use of these communications
technologies crosses State lines, however, courts have agreed that Federal
jurisdiction is conferred. To date, prosecution under Federal laws may have
been more successful than State prosecution in bringing high-tech stalkers to 
justice.

Appendix A summarizes the status of State cases filed through August 2000.

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

Chapter 5 
Federal Prosecutions

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) made it a Federal offense
to cross State or tribal lines to commit domestic violence or to violate a
protection order.[27] It is also a Federal offense to possess a firearm while
under a domestic violence protection order or if convicted of a misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence.[28] Although the vast majority of domestic violence
cases continue to be prosecuted at the State, local, and tribal levels, these
statutory tools enable Federal law enforcement to prosecute certain cases in
cooperation with the local authorities.

A Federal interstate stalking law, 18 U.S.C. ss 2261A, was enacted in 1996.
This statute prohibited individuals from traveling across a State line with the
intent to injure or harass another person and, in the course of or as a result of
that travel, placing that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious
bodily injury to, that person or a member of that person's immediate family. The
statute also criminalized the same conduct within the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States regardless of whether a State line was
crossed. Courts may sentence offenders to 10 years if the offense results in
serious bodily injury to the victim or if the offender uses a dangerous weapon,
20 years if permanent disfigurement or life-threatening bodily injury results, and
a life sentence if death of the victim results.

The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (VAWA 2000) amended the
Federal interstate stalking law to include travel across State and national
boundaries, as well as travel into or out of Indian country and within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.[29] VAWA 2000 also
expanded the Federal statute to cover certain travel or conduct with the intent
to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, whereas the law originally
covered only the intent to injure or harass. Moreover, it is now a violation of
Federal law to place the victim in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious
bodily injury to, the victim's current or former intimate partner. Finally, the new
statute criminalizes the use of the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign
commerce to engage in a course of conduct that places the victim in reasonable
fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, the victim, a member of the
victim's immediate family, or a spouse or intimate partner of the victim. This
new provision covers cyberstalking in which the perpetrator and the victim are
in different States or tribal jurisdictions or within the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The penalties for the Federal stalking
offenses remain the same as those enacted in 1996.

Vigorous prosecution of the VAWA and VAWA-related offenses is a top
priority for the Justice Department. After passage of these laws, the
Department asked each U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) to designate a Point of
Contact for the prosecution of the Federal domestic violence and stalking laws.
In 1997, the Office for Victims of Crime funded a position of VAWA Specialist
assigned to the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) to focus
exclusively on training and technical assistance for the VAWA Points of
Contact and victim witness coordinators on the prosecution of Federal
domestic violence and stalking cases. The position, originally funded for a year,
was extended for a second year. In November 1998, EOUSA created a
permanent VAWA Specialist position, in full recognition of the importance of
these cases and the continuing need for training and technical assistance.

These prosecution efforts have been successful because the USAOs have
forged partnerships with their State, local, and tribal counterparts, allowing
USAOs to bring Federal cases where appropriate. As of October 2000, the
Justice Department had prosecuted 35 cases against 39 stalkers under the
interstate stalking provision and had won convictions of 25 defendants in 23
cases (11 cases were still pending disposition as of that date).[30] In all but 1
of the 35 cases, the stalker was male. In one case, the male stalker had a
female accomplice, and in another the stalker's mother and father were his
accomplices. In 34 of the 35 cases, the victim was female, and in 27 cases the
stalker and victim were current or former intimate partners. Three cases
involved workplace stalking. As of October 2000, 18 defendants have been
sentenced and 7 are awaiting sentencing.

In the 14 sentences handed down since March 1998, the penalties have ranged
from 13 months and supervised release to life imprisonment. Defendants
pleaded guilty in 10 of these cases. In one case, in which the defendant was
sentenced to 13 months of incarceration and 3 years of supervised release, he
also was ordered to pay restitution and to have no contact with the victim. The
next highest sentence included an upward departure by the judge, which
resulted in 21 months of incarceration and 3 years of supervised release. In
another case, the defendant received a 22-month sentence and was ordered to
pay the victim $7,000, which included moving costs the victim incurred trying to
escape the stalking. Another defendant was sentenced to 60 months of
incarceration and 3 years of supervised release for interstate violation of a
protection order, interstate stalking, and arson. Other sentences included
consecutive sentences on 4 stalking counts totaling 20 years and 4 life
sentences (including 1 consecutive life sentence) for a defendant who stalked,
kidnapped, shot, and murdered the victim.

Case Examples

The following are examples of cases that have been prosecuted under the
Federal interstate stalking statute.

The USAO for the Western District of Texas prosecuted a defendant who
traveled from Alabama to Texas, where he terrorized his ex-wife and three
grown sons. The defendant, who had been in Federal custody in Alabama for
making interstate threatening phone calls to another ex-wife, traveled to Texas
after he lost custody of a minor child. At sentencing, the court considered the
defendant's lengthy history of abusing the 4 stalking victims--a history that
included beatings, torture, abandonment, threats to kill, stabbing, and burning--
and departed upward from the sentencing guidelines to impose the maximum
sentence of 20 years.

In a case prosecuted in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the defendant,
who previously had been verbally abusive toward his wife, assaulted and
threatened to kill her while she was visiting him in the State where he was
studying to receive a license to practice medicine. When she returned to their
home State, he continued to threaten her over the telephone, and he arrived at
her home one day after threatening to kill her. He was sentenced to 22 months
and was ordered to pay the victim $7,000 in restitution.

In another case, the defendant had been convicted in Nevada of assaulting his
wife and had served a 6-month sentence for the offense. After his release from
prison, he called the victim in California and threatened that he would come
after her and would destroy her car. While subject to a protection order in
Nevada, he traveled to California and set fire to his wife's car. He was
sentenced to 60 months of incarceration and 3 years of supervised release.

Another defendant, who had been abusing his wife for several years, threatened
to kill her sister, who was a police officer in a neighboring State. He also
threatened to kill a man whom he accused of being involved with his wife. The
day after he made these threats, the defendant was found approximately a
quarter mile from the home of his wife's sister, armed with a revolver and an
automatic weapon. He has been convicted of interstate stalking and awaits
sentencing.

In a case prosecuted in the District of Maine, the defendant, after losing
custody of his children, traveled to the State where his wife, from whom he was
separated, was living. An accomplice lured his wife's brother and boyfriend out
of the house, and the defendant killed them both. He and his accomplice then
kidnapped his wife and drove her to New York where they were found in a
motel room. The defendant was convicted of interstate domestic violence,
interstate stalking, kidnapping, and interstate violation of a protection order. He
received a life sentence.

Another defendant forced his wife to travel from Florida to Kentucky, where he
and an accomplice sexually assaulted her. He also harassed his wife, obtained
false arrest warrants for her, and posted signs seeking information on her
whereabouts and offering a reward for any such information. The defendant
was convicted at trial of interstate domestic violence, interstate violation of a
protection order, and interstate stalking. At sentencing, the judge departed
upward and sentenced the defendant to 87 months in prison and 3 years of
supervised release.


Conclusion

The Federal antistalking statute is a valuable tool for prosecuting cases where
the interstate nature of the offense may complicate effective State investigation
and prosecution. U.S. Attorneys can prosecute cases that they could not
pursue previously unless the case met the elements of the VAWA offenses for
crossing State or tribal lines to commit domestic violence or violation of a
protection order. 

While the interstate stalking law was not intended to supplant State and local
prosecution of stalking crimes, the Federal Government has an important role to
play in supplementing State and local efforts. In some cases, a Federal
prosecution may carry a more severe and appropriate punishment for an
offender than a prosecution under a similar State law. If a defendant has
traveled from State to State, local law enforcement officials may have difficulty
gathering evidence. Federal prosecution is not as problematic because of the
nationwide resources of the FBI. In other cases, a State prosecutor may
request that the case be referred for Federal prosecution because, once
detained by a Federal court, a defendant is more likely to remain in custody
prior to trial.

The Justice Department is committed to prosecuting cases under the VAWA
and VAWA-related statutes and to building partnerships with State, local, and
tribal counterparts. These efforts include sponsorship of and participation in
local and regional conferences addressing the dynamics of domestic violence,
prosecution of domestic violence cases, and training on the Federal domestic
violence and stalking laws. The audiences for these training conferences and
workshops have included State, local, and tribal law enforcement, prosecutors,
judges, victim advocates, and Federal law enforcement. While recognizing that
outreach extends beyond the traditional role of USAOs, the Justice Department
supports these efforts to ensure a Federal presence in interstate stalking and
domestic violence cases. Referrals of Federal cases have come from police
officers, district attorneys, shelter workers, victim advocates, and others who
come in contact with domestic violence and stalking victims. In addition, this
outreach will continue to include representatives of the FBI and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The readiness of Federal law enforcement to
respond to case referrals and to investigate and prosecute stalking cases is
critical to our efforts.

The Violence Against Women Office, EOUSA and its VAWA Specialist, and
the rest of the Justice Department will continue to support USAOs in education
and training efforts in their jurisdictions and in prosecution of cases under the
Federal domestic violence and stalking laws.

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

Notes

1 18 U.S.C. ss 2261A (1996).

2 "Cyberstalking: A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Industry,"
Attorney General's Report to the Vice President, U.S. Department of Justice,
August 1999.

3 Statutes that require a showing of a credible threat may be problematic in the
prosecution of stalking cases. Stalkers often do not threaten their victims overtly
or in person; rather, they engage in conduct that, when taken in context, would
cause a reasonable person to fear violence. In the context of cyberstalking, a
credible threat requirement would be even more problematic because the
stalker, sometimes unknown to the victim, may be located a great distance
away and, therefore, the threat might not be considered credible. The better
approach, codified in the Federal interstate stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. ss
2261A, is to prohibit conduct that places a person in reasonable fear of death
or bodily injury. 

4 Tjaden, Patricia, and Nancy Thoennes, Stalking in America: Findings From
the National Violence Against Women Survey, National Institute of Justice and
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, April 1998. 

5 Fisher, B.S., F.T. Cullen, J. Belknap, and M.G. Turner, "Being Pursued:
Stalking Victimization in a National Study of College Women." (From a
forthcoming report on sexual violence against college women funded by the
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice).

6 The information was gathered through informal surveys of State attorneys
general, USAOs, and, to a lesser extent, local prosecutors' offices. Victim
accounts were given voluntarily through outreach conducted by the Violence
Against Women Office of the U.S. Department of Justice. In addition, the
American Prosecutors Research Institute of the National District Attorneys
Association compiled a report with background information on cyberstalking,
which provided valuable information on current law enforcement efforts. 

7 These States are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. Arkansas and Maryland
have enacted statutes that cover harassment via electronic communications
outside their stalking statutes.

8 "Telecommunications device" excludes interactive computer services to
insulate the service provider from liability but not to insulate an individual user
from liability for his or her criminal behavior. Accordingly, the Justice
Department successfully argued that a modem was a telecommunications
device within the meaning of the statute. Therefore, an individual who uses a
modem to connect to the Internet and harass an individual is likely to fall within
the terms of the statute. See American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 929 F.
Supp. 824, 829 n.5 (E.D. Penn. 1996), aff'd, 521 U.S. 844 (1997);
Apollomedia Corporation v. Reno, 19 F. Supp.2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. 1998),
aff'd, U.S. 119 S.Ct. 1450 (U.S. Apr. 19, 1999).

9 Neal Miller of the Institute for Law and Justice conducted this survey. The
survey was completed in February of 1999.

10 "Fighting words" refers to language that is likely to lead to a physical
confrontation.

11 There was about a 60-percent response rate to the first mailing. A second
mailing was sent out to the nonrespondents, bringing the response for the survey
to more than 80 percent. 

12 Stalking in America: Findings From the National Violence Against Women
Survey, supra note 4.

13 Burt, M.R., et al., 2000 Report: Evaluation of the STOP Formula Grants To
Combat Violence Against Women, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute,
March 2000.

14 Stalking in America: Findings From the National Violence Against Women
Survey, supra note 4 at p. 7.

15 Id. at p. 9.

16 Id. at p. 11.

17 Id.

18 Id. 

19 Id. at p. 14.


20 This information was gathered from government Web sites, commercial
legislative reporters, and telephone interviews with selected State legislative
research bureau staff. Neal Miller of the Institute for Law and Justice
conducted the study.

21 Criminal laws involving threats include intimidation and extortion statutes,
which involve threats as punishment for past and future acts. Excluded from this
review are cases prosecuted under these related laws where the facts show
behavior totally unrelated to stalking. See, e.g., Coates v. City of Cincinnati,
402 U.S. 611 (1971) (public disturbance of the peace) and State v. Kansas,
629 P.2d 748 (Ka. Ct. App. 1981) (hate crime threats).

22 The review was primarily limited to published court decisions. However,
unpublished decisions that were available at a State court Web site were
included where relevant according to the criteria stated above.

23 The most significant omission is the exclusion of most decisions prior to
1970 on the assumption that the older cases are largely repetitive of more
recent decisions. 

24 See, e.g., Soldona v. State, 466 S.E.2d 655 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)
(insufficient evidence claim) and People v. Garrett, 36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 33 (Ct.
App. 1994) (evidence admissibility challenge). See also Kirkendoll v. State,
945 S.W.2d 400 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997) (defendant charged with stalking
claimed failure of waiver of right to counsel in pro se defense).

25 See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 615 So.2d 112 (Ala. Ct. Crim. App. 1992).
Other examples of excluded cases include People v. Thomas, 148 Cal. Rptr.
52 (Ct. App. 1978) (threat against witness testifying at future trial) and People
v. Mirmirani, 178 Cal. Rptr. 172 (1982) (political terrorism threat).

26 National Criminal Justice Association, Project To Develop a Model
Anti-Stalking Code for States, National Institute of Justice Research Report,
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice,
October 1993.

27 Violence Against Women Act of 1994 ss 40231, 18 U.S.C. ssss 2261,
2262. These provisions also prohibit causing a spouse or intimate partner to
cross State or tribal lines by force, coercion, duress, or fraud and, in the course
of or as a result of such conduct, committing domestic violence or violating a
protection order. 

28 See 18 U.S.C. ss 922(g)(8)-(9).

29 Violence Against Women Act of 2000 ss 1107, 18 U.S.C. ss 2261A.

30 In one case, the defendant was convicted of assault under 18 U.S.C. ss 113
but was acquitted on the interstate stalking charge. In another case, the
defendant was placed in pretrial diversion.

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

Appendix A 
Stalking and Related Cases

Tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in
its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web
site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420 (877-712-9279 For
TTY users).

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

Appendix B 
Bibliography

Abrams, K.M., and G.E. Robinson. "Stalking, Part I: An Overview of the
Problem." Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 43(5) (June 1998): 473-476.

Abrams, K.M., and G.E. Robinson. "Stalking, Part II: Victims' Problems With
the Legal System and Therapeutic Considerations." Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry 43(5) (June 1998): 477-481.

Ackerman, E., and D. Whitman. "When Obsession Turns Ominous." US News
& World Report (November 24, 1997): 43.

Alldridge, P. "Threat Offenses--A Case for Reform." Criminal Law Review 3
(1994): 176-186.

Allen, M.J. "Look Who's Stalking: Seeking a Solution to the Problem of
Stalking." Web Journal of Current Legal Issues 4 (1996). 
www.newcastle.ac.uk/~nlawwww/1996/issue4/allen4.html.

American Prosecutors Research Institute. Mission Possible: Stopping Stalkers
(a comprehensive training curriculum) (Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors
Research Institute, 1997).


American Prosecutors Research Institute. Stalking: Prosecutors Convict and
Restrict. (Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute, 1997).

Anderson, S.C. "Anti-Stalking Laws: Will They Curb the Erotomaniac's
Obsessive Pursuit?" Law and Psychiatry Review 17 (1993): 171-185.

"Annotation. Validity, Construction, and Application of Stalking Statutes."
American Law Review 29(5) (1995): 487+.

"Anti-Stalker Device." Law and Order 40(10) (October 1992): 4+.

Aron, E., E.N. Aron, and J. Allen. "Motivations for Unreciprocated Love."
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24 (1998): 787-796.

Attinello, K.L. "Anti-Stalking Legislation: A Comparison of Traditional
Remedies Available for Victims of Harassment Versus California Penal Code
Section 646.9 (California Anti-Stalking Law)." Pacific Law Journal 24(4) (July
1993): 1945-1980.

Bachman, A., and A.L. Coker. "Police Involvement in Domestic Violence: The
Interactive Effects of Victim Injury, Offender History of Violence, and Race."
Violence and Victims 10(2) (1995): 91-106.

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

Baker, D. "When CyberStalkers Walk." ABA Journal (December 1999): 50-
54.

Bane, V. "By Love Obsessed." People Weekly 48(2) (July 14, 1997): 65+.

Banks, M.A. Web Psychos, Stalkers, and Pranksters (Albany, NY: Coriolis
Group Books, 1997).

Barton, G. "Taking a Byte Out of Crime: E-Mail Harassment and the Inefficacy
of Existing Law." Washington Law Review 70 (April 1995): 465-490.

Baty, J.A. "Alabama's Stalking Statutes: Coming Out of the Shadows."
Alabama Law Review 48 (Fall 1996): 229.

Batza, D.M., and M. Taylor. "Stalking in the Community and Workplace." In
Violence in Our Lives: Impact on Workplace, Home, and Community, E.K.
Caril, ed. (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1999): 66-96.

Baumeister, R.F., S.R. Wotman, and A.M. Stillwell. "Unrequited Love: On
Heartbreak, Anger, Guilt, Scriptlessness, and Humiliation." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 64 (1993): 377-394.

Beck, A. "Murderous Obsession." Newsweek (July 13, 1992): 60.

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

Bernstein, H.A. "Survey of Threats and Assaults Directed Toward
Psychotherapists." American Journal of Psychotherapy 35 (1981): 542-549.

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

Berry, J.L., and P. Haden. "Psychose Passionnelle in Successive Generations."
British Journal of Psychiatry 137 (1980): 574-575.

Bette, M., and J. Maglitta. "IS Policies Target E-mail Harassment."
Computerworld (February 13, 1995): 12.

Bhaumik, S., and R.A. Collacott. "Erotomanic Delusions in a Male With a
Mental Handicap." Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 37(3) (1993):
1027-1031.

Birmingham, L.N. "Closing the Loophole: Vermont's Legislative Response to
Stalking." Vermont Law Review 18(2) (Winter 1994): 477-527.

Bjerregaard, B. "Stalking and the First Amendment: A Constitutional Analysis
of State Stalking Laws." Criminal Law Bulletin 32(4) (July-August 1996): 307-
341.

Blackburn, J., and D. Sweeney. "Obsessive Fans." Vox (May 1998): 22+.

Borum, R., et al. "Threat Assessment: Defining an Approach for Evaluating
Risk of Targeted Violence." Behavioral Science and the Law 17(3) (1999):
323-337.

Bouchard, K.J. "Can Civil Damage Suits Stop Stalkers?" Boston University
Public Interest Law Journal 6 (Winter 1997): 551+.

Boychuk, M.K. "Are Stalking Laws Unconstitutionally Vague or Overbroad?"
Northwestern University Law Review 88 (Winter 1994): 769+.

Bradburn, W.E. "Stalking Statutes: An Ineffective Legislative Remedy for
Rectifying Perceived Problems With Today's Injunction System." Ohio
Northern University Law Review 19 (1992): 271.

Bradfield, J.L. "Anti-Stalking Laws: Do They Adequately Protect Stalking
Victims?" Harvard Women's Law Journal 21 (1998): 229-266.

Bratslavsky, E., R.F. Baumeister, and K.L. Sommer. "To Love or Be Loved in
Vain: The Trials and Tribulations of Unrequited Love." In The Dark Side of
Close Relationships, B.H. Spitzberg and W.R. Cupach, eds. (Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998).

Brewster M.P. An Exploration of the Experiences and Needs of Former
Intimate Stalking Victims (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, 1980).

Brody, J.E. "Do's and Don'ts for Thwarting Stalkers." The New York Times
(August 25, 1998): F7.

Brown, C.N., E.R. Mark, et al. "New Laws To Protect You From Stalkers."
Good Housekeeping (August 1993): 155+.

Browne, J.Z., and K. Gerwig. "Digital Restraint for Texas Stalker." NetGuide
(December 1996): 38+.

Buckley, M. "Stalking Laws--Problem or Solution?" Wisconsin Women's Law
Journal 9(23) (1994): 23-66.

Bumiller, E. "The Sister Who Made Amends: Her Brother Killed a Woman--
Now She's Fighting for Crime Victims." Washington Post (May 9, 1995): C1.

Burgess, A.W., T. Baker, and R. Halloran. "Stalking Behaviors Within
Domestic Violence." Journal of Family Violence 12(4) (December 1997): 389-
403.

Burt, M. Violence Against Women Act of 1994: Evaluation of the STOP Block
Grants to Combat Violence Against Women (Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute, 1996).


Buzawa, E.S., and C.G. Buzawa. Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice
Response. 2d ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996).

Buzawa, E.S., G. Hotaling, and A. Klein. "The Response to Domestic Violence
in a Model Court: Some Initial Findings and Implications." Behavioral Sciences
and the Law 16 (1998): 185-206.

California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. Stalking:
Telecourse Reference Guide (Sacramento, CA: California Commission on
Peace Officer Standards and Training, June 20, 1996).

Campbell, K. "Stalking Again: R v. Ireland; R v. Burstow." The King's College
Law Journal 9 (1998-1999): 144+.

Carlson, M.J., S.D. Harris, and G.W. Holden. "Protective Orders and
Domestic Violence: Risk Factors for Re-Abuse." Journal of Family Violence 14
(1999): 205-226.

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

Carmody, C. "Stalking by Computer." ABA Journal 80(9) (September 1994):
70+.

"Cellular Phones Handed Out to Domestic Violence Victims." Community
Police Digest 1(16) (August 24, 1995): 7.

Chaudhuri, M., and K. Daly. "Do Restraining Orders Help? Battered Women's
Experience With Male Violence and Legal Process." In Domestic Violence:
The Changing Criminal Justice Response, E.S. Buzawa and C.G. Buzawa, eds.
(Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1992).

Church, E.J. "But I Still Love You! Obsessive Love, Stalking, and the Pursuit
of Remedies." The New Mexico Trial Lawyer 26(9) (October 1998): 1, 203-
212.

Clede, B. "Monitoring Stalkers: Keeping Track Inexpensively." Law and Order
41(11) (September 1993): 78-79.

Coleman, F.L. "Stalking Behavior and the Cycle of Domestic Violence."
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 12(3) (1997): 420-432.

"Comment: The Formation and Viability of Anti-Stalking Laws." Villanova Law
Review 39 (1994): 1387+.

Cooper, M. Criminal Harassment and Potential for Treatment: Literature
Review and Annotated Bibliography (Vancouver, Canada: BC Institute on
Family Violence, 1994).

Copelan, D. "Is Georgia's Stalking Law Unconstitutionally Vague?" Mercer
Law Review 45(2) (Winter 1994): 853-863.

Cordes, R. "A Deputy's Hunch Stops a Wife Stalker." Sheriff 45(3) (May-June
1993): 29, 32.

Cordes, R. "Watching Over the Watched: Greater Protection Sought for
Stalking Victims." Trial 29(12) (October 1993): 12-13.

Corrado, M.L. "Criminal Law: Punishment and the Wild Beast of Prey: The
Problem of Preventive Detention." Northwestern School of Law Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology 86 (Spring 1996): 778.

Craven, D. Female Victims of Violent Crime: Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Findings (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, December 1996).

Criminal Defense Newsletter 19(4) (January 1996).

Crisis Intervention and Time-Limited Cognitive Treatment (Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, 1995).

Crowley, R.R. "Crimes Against the Person: Provide Two Additional Means by
Which Aggravated Stalking Statute May Be Violated." Georgia State
University Law Review 12 (October 1995): 105.

Cupach, W.R., and B.H. Spitzberg. "When a Relationship Won't End." In Case
Studies in Interpersonal Communication: Processes and Problems, D.O.
Braithwaite and J.T. Woods, eds. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning, 2000).

Cupach, W.R., and B.H. Spitzberg. "Obsessive Relational Intrusion and
Stalking." In The Dark Side of Close Relationships, B.H. Spitzberg and W.R.
Cupach, eds. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998).

Current or Recently Completed Research in Domestic Violence and Child
Abuse (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1994).

Cupach, W.R., B.H. Spitzberg, and C.L. Carson. "Excessive Emotion: Toward
a Theory of Obsessive Relational Intrusion and Stalking Perpetration." In
Handbook of Personal Relationships, 3d ed., S. Duck, ed. (New York, NY:
Wiley, in press).

D'Amico, M., and R.B. Bruno. "Cyberstalking Via the Net." NetGuide
(February 1997): 32.

D'Antonio, M. "The Strangest Stalking Case Ever." Redbook 187(2) (June
1996): 108+.

Darny, S. "He's Stalking Me--One Woman's Story." The Washingtonian 30(6)
(March 1995): 72.

David, J.W. "Is Pennsylvania's Stalking Law Constitutional?" University of
Pittsburgh Law Review 56 (1994): 205.

Davis, J.A., and M.A. Chipman. "Stalkers and Other Obsessional Types: A
Review and Forensic Psychological Typology of Those Who Stalk." Journal of
Clinical Forensic Medicine 4 (1997): 166-172.

Davis, M.F., and S.J. Kraham. "Protecting Women's Welfare in the Face of
Violence." Fordham Urban Journal 22 (Summer 1995):1, 141.

Deirmenjian, J.M. "Stalking in Cyberspace." Journal of American Academy of
Psychiatry and the Law 17(3) (1999): 407-413.

Delaware Statistical Analysis Center. Domestic Violence in Delaware 1994: An
Analysis of Victim to Offender Relationships With Special Focus on Stalking
(Dover, DE: Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, 1996).

Diacovo, N. "California's Anti-Stalking Statute: Deterrent or False Sense of
Security." Southwestern University Law Review 24 (1995): 389.

Domestic Violence and Stalking: The Second Annual Report to Congress
Under the Violence Against Women Act (Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, 1997).

Douglas, J., and M. Olshaker. Obsession (New York, NY: Scribner, 1998).

Dunlop, J.L. "Does Erotomania Exist Between Women?" British Journal of
Psychiatry 153 (1988): 830-833.

Dunn, J. "What Love Has To Do With It: The Cultural Construction of
Emotions and Sorority Women Responses to Forcible Interactions." Social
Problems 46 (August 1999): 440-459.

Dunn, J. "No Place To Hide: Violent Pursuit in Public and Private." In
Perspective on Social Problems, vol. 9 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press 1997):
143-168.

Dvorchak, R.J. Someone Is Stalking Me: A True Story of Marriage, Murder,
and Deadly Delusions in the Michigan Heartland (New York, NY: Dell, 1993).

Dworaczyk, K. Rewriting the Stalking Law (Austin, TX: House Research
Organization, Texas House of Representatives, 1997).

Dziegielewski, S.F., and A.R. Roberts. "Stalking Victims and Survivors:
Identification, Legal Remedies, and Crisis Treatment." In Crisis Intervention and
Time-Limited Cognitive Treatment, A.R. Roberts, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 1995).

Eckenwiler, M. "Net.Law." NetGuide (February 1996): 35+.

Eisele, G.R., J.P. Watkins, and K.O. Matthews. "Workplace Violence at
Government Sites." American Journal of Industrial Medicine 33(5) (May
1998): 485-492.

El Paso Police Department, Domestic Violence Prevention Unit. Stalking and
Domestic Violence: Faces in the Shadows (El Paso, TX: El Paso Police
Department, Domestic Violence Prevention Unit, n.d.).

"Electronic Warning Alerts Victim: Leads to Probationer's Arrest." Alternatives
to Incarceration 2(3) (May-June 1996): 8+.

Emerson, R.M., and K.O. Ferris. "On Being Stalked." Social Problems 45(3)
(August 1998): 289+.

Engley, H.L. "Psychiatrist's Book Details Life Under a Stalker's Obsession."
The Detroit News (July 31, 1997).

English, K., S. Pullen, and L. Jones. Managing Adult Sex Offenders in the
Community--A Containment Approach. Research in Brief (Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1997).

Enoch, M.D. "Delusional Jealousy and Awareness of Reality." British Journal of
Psychiatry 159 (Suppl. 14) (1991): 52-56.

Evans, D.L., L.L. Jeckel, and N.E. Slott. "Erotomanic: A Variant of
Pathological Mourning." Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 46 (1982): 507-520.

Evans, R. "Every Step You Take: The Strange and Subtle Crime of Stalking."
Law Institute Journal 68 (1994): 1021-1023.

Fahnestock, J. "All Stock and No Action: Pending Missouri Stalking
Legislation." University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review (1993).

Farnham, F.R., C.W. Ritchie, D.V. James, and H.G. Kennedy. "Pathology of
Love." Lancet 350(1979): 710.

Faulkner, R.P., and D.H. Hsiao. "And Where You Go I'll Follow: The
Constitutionality of Antistalking Laws and Proposed Model Legislation."
Harvard Journal on Legislation 31(1) (Winter 1994): 1-62.

Fein, R.A., and B. Vossekuil. "Preventing Attacks on Public Officials and
Public Figures: A Secret Service Perspective." In The Psychology of Stalking,
J.R. Meloy, ed. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998).

Fein, R.A., B. Vossekuil, and G. Holden. Threat Assessment: An Approach To
Prevent Targeted Violence. Research in Brief (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, September 1995).

Fink, M. Adolescent Sexual Assault and Harassment Prevention Curriculum
(Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications, 1999).

"Five Steps To Take If You're Worried About Being Stalked." Glamour (June
1994): 90.

Flowers, R.B. The Victimization and Exploitation of Women and Children: A
Study of Physical, Mental, and Sexual Maltreatment in the United States
(Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1994).

Flynn, C.P. "New Jersey Antistalking Law: Putting an End to a ÔFatal
Attraction.'" Seton Hall Legislative Journal 18 (1993): 297.

"For Some, E-mail Becoming a Form of Harassment." Black Issues in Higher
Education 12(24) (January 22, 1998): 9.

Fremouw, W.J., D. Westrup, and J. Pennypacker. "Stalking on Campus: The
Prevalence and Strategies for Coping With Stalking." Journal of Forensic
Sciences 42(4) (July 1997): 666.

Fritz, J.P. "A Proposal for Mental Health Provisions in State Anti-Stalking
Laws." The Journal of Psychiatry and Law 23 (Summer 1995): 295.

Furio, J. "Can New State Laws Stop the Stalker?" Ms. (January-February
1993): 90+.

Gargan, J. "Stop Stalkers Before They Strike." Security Management 38(2)
(February 1994): 31+.

Gedatus, G.M. Stalking (Mankato, MN: LifeMatters, 2000).

Gerberth, V.J. "Stalkers." Law and Order 40(10) (October 1992): 138-143.

Gibeaut, J. "Fatal Failures: Special Report/Mental Health Law." ABA Journal
86 (January 2000): 40-48.

Gill, M.S. "The Phone Stalkers." Ladies Home Journal 112(9) (September
1995): 82+.

Gill, R., and J. Brockman. A Review of Section 264 (Criminal Harassment) of
the Criminal Code of Canada (Canada: Research, Statistics and Evaluation
Directorate, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996).

Gilligan, M.J. "Stalking the Stalker: Developing New Laws To Thwart Those
Who Terrorize Others." Georgia Law Review 27(1) (Fall 1992): 285-342.

Goldberg, D. "Victim Can't Lift Court's Stalking Ban: Appeal Panel Cites
Novel Behavioral Concept in Decision; ÔLearned Helplessness.'" The Los
Angeles Daily Journal (January 24, 1997): 1.

Gondolf, E.W., J. McWilliams, B. Hart, and J. Stuehling. "Court Response to
Petitions for Civil Protection Orders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9
(1994): 503-517.

Goode, M. "Stalking: Crime of the Nineties?" Criminal Law Journal 19(1)
(1995): 27+.

Goodnough, D. Stalking: A Hot Issue (Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow, 2000).

Goodwin, M. "Stalked!" Woman's Day 56(6) (March 16, 1993): 49+.

Goodyear-Smith, F.A., et al. "Aggressive Acts and Assaults in Intimate
Relationships: Towards an Understanding of the Literature." Behavioral Science
and the Law 17(3) (1999): 285-304.

Goom, S. "Whether Committed by Words Alone--Letters Inducing Fear of
Violence--Whether Apprehension of ÔImmediate' Violence." Criminal Law
Review (August 1997): 576-588.

Great Britain Home Office. "Stalking, the Solutions: A Consultation Paper"
(London, England: Great Britain Home Office, 1996).

Greenberg, S. "Threats, Harassment, and Hate On-Line: Recent." Boston
University Public Interest Law Journal 6 (Spring 1997): 673+.

Gregson, C.B. "California's Antistalking Statute: The Pivotal Role of Intent."
Golden Gate University Law Review 28 (1998): 221-263.

Gross, L. To Have or To Harm: From Infatuation to Fatal Attraction (New
York, NY: Warner Books, 1994).

Gross, L. Understanding and Surviving America's Stalking Epidemic: A Special
Report (LaMesa, CA: Bear Publishing, 1994).

Guy, R.A., Jr. "Nature and Constitutionality of Stalking Laws." Vanderbilt Law
Review 46(4) (May 1993): 991-1029.

Hager, B.D. "Workplace Stalking Incidents Call for Strong Prevention."
Business Press 9(24) (October 11, 1996): 31+.

Hager, B.D. "Stalking Incidents at Work Call for Preventive Measures."
Fairfield County Business Journal 35(21) (May 20, 1996): 16.

Haggard, T.R. "The South Carolina Anti-Stalking Statute: A Study in Bad
Drafting." South Carolina Lawyer 5(5) (March 1997): 13.

Hall, D.M. "The Victims of Stalking." In The Psychology of Stalking, J.R.
Meloy, ed. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998).

Hall, D.M. "Outside Looking In: Stalkers and Their Victims." Dissertation
Abstracts International 58-08A (1997): 3314.

Hankins, J.L. "Criminal Anti-Stalking Laws: Oklahoma Hops on the Legislative
Bandwagon." Oklahoma Law Review 46 (Spring 1993): 109.

Harmon, B.K. "Illinois' Newly Amended Stalking Law: Are All the Problems
Solved?" Southern Illinois University Law Journal 10 (1994): 165.

Harmon, R.B., R. Rosner, and H. Owens. "Sex and Violence in a Forensic
Population of Obsessional Harassers." Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
4(«) (1998): 236-249.

Harmon, R.B., R. Rosner, and H. Owens. "Obsessional Harassment and
Erotomania in a Criminal Court Population." Journal of Forensic Sciences 40(2)
(March 1995): 188-196.

Hartman. L. Solutions: The Women's Crisis Handbook (Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin, 1997).

Hayes, C.L. "If That Man Is Following Her, Connecticut Is Going To Follow
Him." The New York Times (June 5, 1992): B1.

Hays, J.R., J.S.C. Romans, and M.K. Ritchhart. "Reducing Stalking Behaviors
for College and University Counseling Services." Journal of College Student
Psychotherapy 10(1) (1995): 57.

Hendricks, J.E., and L. Spillane. "Stalking: What Can We Do To Forestall
Tragedy?" The Police Chief 60(12) (October 1992): 4+.

Hoffman, A. Love Kills: The Stalking of Diane Newton King (New York, NY:
Avon Books, 1994).

Holmes, R.M. "Stalking in America: Types and Methods of Criminal Stalkers."
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 9(4) (December 1993): 17+.

Hueter, J.A. "Lifesaving Legislation: But Will the Washington Stalking Law
Survive Constitutional Scrutiny?" Washington Law Review 72(1) (January
1997): 213-240.

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

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


Ingrassia, M., and S. Holmes. "Open to Attack." Newsweek (January 17,
1994): 46+.

Ingrassia, M., J. McCormick, et al. "Stalked to Death?" Newsweek
(November 1, 1993): 27+.

International Association of Chiefs of Police. Protecting Victims of Domestic
Violence: A Law Enforcement Officer's Guide to Enforcing Orders of
Protection Nationwide (Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of
Police, 1999).

"Investigations." Law and Order 42(5) (May 1, 1994): 89.

Janal, D.S. Risky Business: Protect Your Business From Being Stalked,
Conned, or Blackmailed on the Web (New York, NY: John Wiley, 1999).

Jason, L.A., et al. "Female Harassment After Ending a Relationship: A
Preliminary Study." Alternative Lifestyles 6 (1984): 259-269.

Johnson, D.L. "A Team Approach to Threat Assessment." Security
Management 38(9) (September 1994): 73+.

Jordan, T. "The Efficacy of the California Stalking Law: Surveying Its Evolution,
Extracting Insights From Domestic Violence Cases." Hastings Women's Law
Journal 6(2) (Summer 1995): 363-383.

Jowers, K. "We Can Control Stalking Problem, Say the Services." Navy Times
43(39) (July 4, 1994): 23.

Kace, J.H. "Aftermath of Seeking Domestic Violence Protective Orders: The
Victim's Perspective." Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 110(3)
(September 1994): 204-219.

Kachmar, A.J. "Review of Selected 1995 California Legislation; Crimes;
Stalking." Pacific Law Journal 27 (Winter 1996): 589+.

Kane, J. "Avoiding Cyber-Harassment." Orlando Business Journal 13(51)
(May 23, 1997): 30+.

Kappeler, V.E., B. Blumberg, and G.W. Potter. Mythology of Crime and
Criminal Justice. 2d ed. (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1996).

Karbarz, S.L. "The First Amendment Implications of Antistalking Statutes."
Journal of Legislation 21 (1995): 333+.

Katz, J.E. "Empirical and Theoretical Dimensions of Obscene Phone Calls to
Women in the United States." Human Communication Research 21 (1994):
155-182.

Kausch, O., and P.J. Resnick. "Psychiatric Assessment of the Violent
Offender." In Handbook of Psychological Approaches With Violent Offenders:
Contemporary Strategies and Issues, V.B. Van Hasselt and M. Hersen, eds.
(Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999).

Keenehan, D., and A. Barlow. "Stalking: A Paradoxical Crime of the Nineties."
International Journal of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention 2 (1997): 291-
300.

Keilitz, S., P.L. Hannaford, and H.S. Efkeman. Civil Protection Orders: The
Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domestic Violence (Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1996).

Kienlen, K.K. "Developmental and Social Antecedents of Stalking." In The
Psychology of Stalking, J.R. Melon, ed. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
1998).

Kienlen, K.K., D.L. Birmingham, and M.J. Reid. "A Comparative Study of
Psychotic and Nonpsychotic Stalking." Journal of American Academy of
Psychiatry and the Law 25(3) (1997): 317-334.

Kirwan, W.E. "Mistakes in Homicide Investigation." Medical Trial Quarterly
12(4) (June 1966): 23-43.

Klein, M. "Stalking Situations." American Demographics 20(3) (March 1998):
32.

Kolarik, G. Prisoners of Fear (New York, NY: Avon Books, 1995).

Kolarik, G. "Stalking." Family Circle 106(7) (May 1993): 98+.

Kolb, T.V. "North Dakota's Stalking Law: Criminalizing the Crime Before the
Crime." North Dakota Law Review 70 (1994): 159.

Kong, R. "Criminal Harassment." Juristat 16(12) (1996):1-13. 

Kowalski, S.K. "Michigan Stalking Law: Is It Constitutional?" Michigan Bar
Journal 73 (1994): 926.

Krueger, K. "Panel Presentation on Stalking." University of Toledo Law
Review 25 (Winter 1995): 903.

Kurt, J.L. "Stalking as a Variant of Domestic Violence." Bulletin of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 23(2) (1995): 219-230.

Landau, E. Stalking (New York, NY: Franklin Watts, 1996).

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

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

Lardner, G., Jr. The Stalking of Kristin: A Father Investigates the Murder of
His Daughter (New York, NY: Onyx, 1995).

Lawrence, T.M. "The Domestic Violence Pendulum: Has It Swung Too Far?
Are Harassment Charges Now Being Used as a Sword Rather Than a Shield."
Seton Hall Law Review 29(1) (1998):342-266.

Lawson-Cruttenden, T. "The Government's Proposed Stalking Law--A
Discussion Paper." Family Law 26 (1996): 755-758.

Lawson-Cruttenden, T. "Is There a Law Against Stalking?" New Law Journal
146(6736) (1996): 418-420.

Lawson-Cruttenden, T., and B. Hussain. "Psychological Assault and
Harassment." New Law Journal 146(6759) (1996): 1326-1327.

Lee, R.K. "Romantic and Electronic Stalking in a College Context." William &
Mary Journal of Women and the Law 4 (1998): 373-466.

Leibs, S. "Mail Aggression." NetGuide 2(6) (June 1995): 71+.

Leidig, M.W. "The Continuum of Violence Against Women: Psychological and
Physical Consequences." Journal of American College Health 40 (1992): 149-
155.

Leong, G.B. "De Clerambault Syndrome (Erotomania) in the Criminal Justice
System: Another Look at This Recurring Problem." Journal of Forensic
Sciences 39(2) (March 1994): 378-385.

Levin, S. "The High Price of Fame." Women's Sports & Fitness (April 1994):
23+.

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

Lindsay, W.R., S. Olley, C. Jack, F. Morrison, and A.H.W. Smith. "The
Treatment of Two Stalkers With Intellectual Disabilities Using a Cognitive
Approach." Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 11 (1998):
333-344.

Lindsey, M. Terror of Batterer Stalking: A Guideline for Intervention (Littleton,
CO: Gylantic Publishing Company, 1993).

Lingg, R.A. "Stopping Stalkers: A Critical Examination of Anti-Stalking
Statutes." St. John's Law Review 67(2) (Spring 1993): 347-381.

Leio, J.R., and J.A. Herschler. "The Stalking of Clinicians by Their Patients." In
The Psychology of Stalking, J.R. Melon, ed. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
1998).

Lipson, G.S., and M.J. Mills. "Stalking, Erotomania, and the Tarasoff Cases."
In The Psychology of Stalking, J.R. Melon, ed. (San Diego, CA: Academic
Press, 1998).

Lloyd-Goldstein, R. "De Clerambault On-Line: A survey of Erotomania and
Stalking From the Old World to the World Wide Web." In The Psychology of
Stalking, J.R. Melon, ed. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998).

Lloyd-Rogers, J. "Law Enforcement Tries To Catch Up With Online Stalkers."
Business Journal Serving San Jose and Silicon Valley (October 27, 1997):
14+.

Los Angeles Police Department. Threat Management Unit Guidelines (Los
Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Police Department, February 1999).

Los Angeles Police Department Threat Management Unit. Stalking Victim's
Handbook (Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Police Department, n.d.).

Loving, B. "DMV Secrecy: Stalking and Suppression of Speech Rights." The
Catholic University of America Commlaw Conspectus 4 (Summer 1996): 203.

Lowney, K.S., and J. Best. "Stalking Strangers and Lovers: Changing Media
Typifications of a New Crime Problem." In Images of Issues: Typifying
Contemporary Social Problems, 2d ed., J. Best, ed. (New York, NY: Aldine
de Gruyter, 1995).

MacFarlane, B.A. "People Who Stalk People, Part 1." The Advocate 57
(March 1999): 201-216.

MacFarlane, B.A. "People Who Stalk People, Part 2." The Advocate 57 (May
1999): 353-377.

Malefyt, M.B., K.M. Little, and A.H. Walker. Promising Practices: Improving
the Criminal Justice System's Response to Violence Against Women
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
1998).

Malestic, S. "When Love Becomes Obsession." Single Parent 37(2) (Summer
1994): 23+.

Manitoba Law Reform Commission. Stalking (Winnipeg, Canada: Manitoba
Law Reform Commission, 1997).

Markman, R.M.D., and R. Labrecque. Obsessed: The Stalking of Theresa
Saldana (New York, NY: William Morrow, 1994).

Marks, C.A. "The Kansas Stalking Law: A ÔCredible Threat' to Victims: A
Critique of the Kansas Stalking Law and Proposed Legislation." Washburn
Law Journal 36(3) (Summer 1997): 468-498.

Maschke, K.J., ed. The Legal Response to Violence Against Women (New
York, NY: Garland, 1997).

Maze, R. "Protection From Stalking Could Get Stronger." Air Force Times
(July 29, 1996): 17.

McAnaney, K., L.A. Curliss, and C.E. Abeyta-Price. "From Imprudence to
Crime: Anti-Stalking Laws." Notre Dame Law Review 68(4) (April 1993):
819-909.

McCann, J.T. "Risk of Violence in Stalking Cases and Legal Case
Management." Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly 69(3) (1998): 117-122.

McCann, J.T. "Subtypes of Stalking (Obsessional Following) in Adolescents."
Journal of Adolescence 21(6) (December 1998): 667-675.

McCreedy, K.R., and B.G. Dennis. "Sex-Related Offenders and Fear of
Crime on Campus." Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 12(1) (1996):
68-81.

McFarlane, J.M., et al. "Stalking and Intimate Partner Femicide." Homicide
Studies 3(4) (1999).

McReynolds, G. "The Enemy You Know." Sacramento Magazine 22(1)
(January-February 1996): 39-41+.

Meloy, J.R. "Threats, Stalking, and Criminal Harassment." In Clinical
Assessment of Dangerousness, G. Pinard and L. Pagani, eds. (New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press, 2001).

Meloy, J.R. "Stalking: An Old Behavior, A New Crime." Psychiatric Clinics of
North America 22(1) (March 1999): 85-99.

Meloy, J.R. "The Psychology of Stalking." In The Psychology of Stalking, J.R.
Meloy, ed. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998).

Meloy, J.R. "A Case Study of Stalking: ÔAll I Wanted Was To Love You.'" In
Contemporary Rorschach Interpretation, J.R. Meloy et al., eds. (Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997):177-190.

Meloy, J.R. "The Clinical Risk Management of Stalking: ÔSomeone Is Watching
Over Me.'" American Journal of Psychotherapy 51(2) (1997): 174-184.

Meloy, J.R. "A Clinical Investigation of the Obsessional Follower: ÔShe Loves
Me, She Loves Me Not.'" In Explorations in Criminal Psychopathology, L.
Schlesinger, ed. (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1996).

Meloy, J.R. "Demographic and Clinical Comparison of Obsessional Followers
and Offenders With Mental Disorders." American Journal of Psychiatry 152(2)
(February 1995): 258+.

Meloy, J.R. "Unrequited Love and the Wish To Kill: Diagnosis and Treatment
of Borderline Erotomania." Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 53(6) (November
1989): 477-492.


Meloy, J.R., P.Y. Cowett, et al. "Domestic Protection Orders and the
Prediction of Subsequent Criminality and Violence Toward Protectees."
Psychotherapy 34 (1996): 447-458.

Meloy, J.R., and S. Gothard. "Demographic and Clinical Comparison of
Obsessional Followers and Offenders With Mental Disorders." American
Journal of Psychiatry 152 (2) (1995): 258-263.

Menzies, R.P.Z.D., et al. "Prediction of Dangerous Behaviour in Male
Erotomania." British Journal of Psychiatry 166 (1995): 529-536.

Meyers, J. "Cultural Factors in Erotomania and Obsessional Following." In The
Psychology of Stalking, J.R. Meloy, ed. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
1998).

Michigan Legislature. Domestic Violence, Stalking, Date Rape: An Information
Guide (Lansing, MI: The Michigan Legislature, 1995).

Milano, S.M. Defending Our Lives: Protecting Yourself From Domestic
Violence and Stalking (Chicago, IL: Noble, 1995).

Miller, R.N. "ÔStalk Talk': A First Look at Anti-Stalking Legislation."
Washington and Lee Law Review 71 (January 1997): 213+.

Milton, J., and J.L. Jankins. "Criminal Law: Criminal ÔAnti-Stalking' Laws:
Oklahoma Hops on the Legislative Bandwagon." Oklahoma Law Review 49
(Spring 1993): 46+.

Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Minnesota Coalition Against
Sexual Assault Training Manual (Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Coalition
Against Sexual Assault, n.d.).

Mintz, E.E. "Obsession With the Rejecting Beloved." Psychoanalytic Review
67(4) (1980): 479-492.

Mohandie, K., C. Hatcher, and D. Raymond. "False Victimization Syndromes
in Stalking." In The Psychology of Stalking, J.R. Meloy, ed. (San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, 1998).

Mohandie, K., et al. "Suicide and Violence Risk in Law Enforcement: Practical
Guidelines for Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Intervention." Behavioral
Science and the Law 17(3) (1999): 357-376.


Monaghan, P. "Beyond the Hollywood Myths: Researchers Examine Stalkers
and Their Victims." Chronicle of Higher Education 44(26) (March 6, 1998):
A17+.

Montesino, B. "I'll Be Watching You: Strengthening the Effectiveness and
Enforceability of State Anti-Stalking Statutes." Loyola of Los Angeles
Entertainment Law Journal 13 (1993): 545-586.

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

Morville, D.A. "Stalking Laws: Are They Solutions for More Problems?"
Washington University Law Quarterly 71 (1993): 921+.

Moses-Zirkes, S. "Psychologists Question Anti-Stalking Laws' Utility." APA
Monitor 23(10)(1992): 53.

Mullen, P.E. "Jealousy: The Pathology of Passion." British Journal of Psychiatry
158 (1991): 593-601.

Mullen, P.E., and M. Pathe. "The Pathological Extensions of Love." British
Journal of Psychiatry 164 (1994): 614-623.

Mullen, P.E., and M. Pathe. "Stalking and the Pathologies of Love." Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 28(3) (September 1994): 469.

Mullen, P.E., M. Pathe, and R. Purcell. Stalkers and Their Victims (New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

Mullen, P.E., M. Pathe, R. Purcell, and G.W. Stuart. "Study of Stalkers."
American Journal of Psychiatry 156(8) (1999): 1244-1249.

Mullins, R. "Employers Need Rules for Office E-mail." Business Journal
Serving Greater Milwaukee 14(49) (October 5, 1997): 26+.

Murray, F.S. "A Preliminary Investigation of Anonymous Nuisance Telephone
Calls to Females." Psychological Record 18 (1967): 395-400.

Murray, F.S., and L.C. Beran. "A Survey of Nuisance Telephone Calls
Received by Males and Females." Psychological Record 18 (1968): 107-109.

Mustaine, E.E., and R. Tewksbury. "A Routine Activities Theory Explanation
for Women's Stalking Victimizations." Violence Against Women 5(1) (1999):
43-62.

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

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

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

National Institute of Justice. Current or Recently Completed Research in
Domestic Violence and Child Abuse (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1994).

"National Violence Against Women Survey Results Released." Police Chief
65(7) (July 1998): 78.

Nehilla, T.J. "Applying Stalking Statutes to Groups--A First Amendment
Freedom of Speech Analysis." Dickinson Law Review 99 (Summer 1995):
1071.

Nestadt, G., et al. "Obsessions and Compulsions in the Community." Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica 89 (1994): 219-224.

Nicastro, E.M., A.V. Cousins, and B.H. Spitzberg. "The Tactical Face of
Stalking." Journal of Criminal Justice (in press).

O'Malley, S., and S.A. Newman. "Horror in Brooklyn Heights." New York
27(23) (June 6, 1994): 24+.

"One in 12 U.S. Women Surveyed Says She's Been Stalked Once." News for
You (December 10, 1997): 2.

"One Woman's Nightmare." Essence 24(6) (October 1993): 72+.

O'Reilly, G.W. "Illinois' Stalking Statute: Taking Unsteady Aim at Preventing
Attacks." John Marshall Law Review 26(4) (Summer 1993): 821-864.

Orion, D. I Know You Really Love Me: A Psychiatrist's Journal of
Erotomania, Stalking, and Obsessive Love (Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan
General Reference, 1997).

Orion, D.R. "Dear Doctor, I Know You Love MeÉ." Medical Economics
72(5) (March 1995): 143+.

Palarea, R.E., M.S. Zona, J.C. Lane, and J. Langhinrichsen-Rohling. "The
Dangerous Nature of Intimate Relationship Stalking: Threats, Violence, and
Associated Risk Factors." Behavioral Science and the Law 17(3) (1999): 269-
283.

Pathe, M., and P.E. Mullen. "The Impact of Stalkers on Their Victims." British
Journal of Psychiatry 170 (January 1997): 12-17.

Pathe, M., P.E. Mullen, and R. Purcell. "Stalking: False Claims of
Victimization." British Journal of Psychiatry 173 (February 1999): 170-172.

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

Perez, C. "Stalking: When Does Obsession Become a Crime?" American
Journal of Criminal Law 20(2) (Winter 1993): 263-280.

Phillips, R.C. "Ins and Outs of Restraining Orders." Law Enforcement
Quarterly (May-June 1997): 5-8.

Phipps, M.P. "North Carolina's New Anti-Stalking Law: Constitutionally
Sound, But Is It Really a Deterrent?" North Carolina Law Review 71(6)
(September 1993): 1933-1953.

Pilon, M. "Anti-Stalking" Laws: The United States and Canadian Experience
(Ottawa, Canada: Library of Parliament, Research Branch, 1993).

Poling, B.E. "Stalking: Is the Law Hiding in the Shadows of Constitutionality?"
Capitol University Law Review 23(1994): 279.

Potter, D.C. "The Jake Baker Case: True Threats and New Technology."
Boston University Law Review 79 (1999): 779-805.

Proctor, M. "Stalking: A Behavioral Overview With Case Management
Strategies." Journal of California Law Enforcement 29(3) (September 1995):
63-69.

"Protecting the Victims." (Editorial) The Los Angeles Daily Journal (January 24,
1996): 6. (From the Klamath Falls, OR, Herald and News.)

Raskin, D.E., and K.E. Sullivan. "Erotomania." American Journal of Psychiatry
131 (1974): 1033-1035.

Reichert, J.L. "Study Tracks Stalking in the United States." Trial 34(8) (August
1998): 89+.

"Research Roundup." Spectrum: The Journal of State Government 71(4) (Fall
1998): 20.

Riggs, S., M. Romano, J. Starkweather, and B. Waaler. Domestic Stalking:
Prevalence, Protection, and Policies (Williamsburg, VA: College of William and
Mary, Center for Public Policy Research December 1997).

"Right or Wrong?" Managing Office Technology 41(9) (September 1996): 10.

Roberts, A.R. Crisis Intervention and Time-Limited Cognitive Treatment
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995).

Roberts, A.R., and S.F. Dziegielewski. "Assessment Typology and Intervention
With the Survivors of Stalking." Aggression and Violent Behavior 1(4) (Winter
1996): 359-368.

Romans, J.S.C., J.R. Hays, and T.K. White. "Stalking and Related Behaviors
Experienced by Counseling Center Staff Members From Current or Former
Clients." Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 27(6) (December
1996): 595.

Roscha, N. "The Anti-Stalking Law of Ohio: Will It Pass Constitutional
Muster?" University of Dayton Law Review 19(2) (Winter 1994): 749-781.

Rosman, J.B. "Survey of Florida Law: Domestic Violence, Recent
Amendments to the Florida Statutes." Nova Law Review 20 (1995): 117.

Ross, E.S. "E-mail Stalking: Is Adequate Legal Protection Available?" The
John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law 13(3) (Spring 1995):
405.

Rudden, M., J. Sweeney, and A. Frances. "Diagnosis and Clinical Course of
Erotomanic and Other Delusional Patients." American Journal of Psychiatry
147 (1990): 625-628.


Russell, M.L. "Back to the Basics: Resisting Novel and Extreme Approaches to
the Law of Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet." The University of Memphis
Law Review 30 (1999): 157-183.

Safran, C. "A Stranger Was Stalking Our Little Girl." Good Housekeeping
215(5) (November 1992): 185.

Salame, L. "A National Survey of Stalking Laws: A Legislative Trend Comes
to the Aid of Domestic Violence Victims and Others." Suffolk University Law
Review 27(67) (Spring 1993): 67-111.

Samuels, A. "Stalking Defined." Statute Law Review 18(3) (1997): 244-249.

Sandberg, D.A., D.E. McNiel, and R.L. Binder. "Characteristics of Psychiatric
Inpatients Who Stalk, Threaten, or Harass Hospital Staff After Discharge."
American Journal of Psychiatry 155(8) (August 1998): 1102-1105.

Sanford, B.S. "Stalking Is Now Illegal: Will a Paper Law Make a Difference?"
Thomas M. Cooley Law Review 10(2) (May 1993): 409-442.

Saunders, R. "The Legal Perspective on Stalking." In The Psychology of
Stalking, J.R. Melon, ed. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998).

Savitz, L. "Obscene Phone Calls." In Critique and Explanation: Essays in Honor
of Gwynne Nettier, T.F. Hartnagel and R.A. Silverman, eds. (New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction, 1986): 149-158.

Saxl, M.V. "The Struggle to Make Stalking a Crime: A Legislative Road Map
of How to Develop Effective Stalking Legislation in Maine." Seton Hall
Legislative Journal 23(1) (1998): 57-100.

Schaum, M., and K. Parrish. Stalked! Breaking the Silence on the Crime of
Stalking in America (New York, NY: Pocket Books, 1995).

Schell, B.H. Stalking, Harassment, and Murder in the Workplace: Guidelines
for Protection and Prevention (Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 2000).

Schelong, K.M. "Domestic Violence and the State: Responses to and
Rationales for Spousal Battering, Marital Rape, and Stalking." Marquette Law
Review 78 (Fall 1994): 79+.

Schreibman, T. "Scary Stalking Statistics." New Woman (March 1998): 61.


Schwartz-Watts, D., and D.W. Morgan. "Violent Versus Nonviolent Stalkers."
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 26(2) (1998):
241-245.

Schwartz-Watts, D., D.W. Morgan, and C.J. Barnes. "Stalkers: The South
Carolina Experience." Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the
Law 25(4) (1997): 541-545.

Scocas, E., et al. Domestic Violence in Delaware, 1994: An Analysis of Victim
to Offender Relationships (Dover, DE: Delaware Statistical Analysis Center,
1996).

Serant, C. "Stalked." Essence 24(6) (October 1993): 72+.

Sheffield, C.J. "The Invisible Intruder: Women's Experiences of Obscene
Phone Calls." Gender and Society 3 (1989): 483-488.

Shields, J.M. "Harassment: A Simple Charge, With a Complicated
Application." New York State Bar Journal 70(3) (March-April 1998).

Skalias, L., and B. Davis. Stalked: A True Story (Arlington, TX: Summit,
1994).

Skoler, G. "The Archetypes and Psychodynamics of Stalking." In The
Psychology of Stalking, J.R. Meloy, ed. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
1998).

Sloan, C.O. "Standing Up to Stalkers: South Carolina's Antistalking Law Is a
Good First Step." South Carolina Law Review 45(2) (Winter 1994): 383-427.

Smith, M.D., and N.N. Morra. "Obscene and Threatening Telephone Calls to
Women: Data From a Canadian National Survey." Gender & Society 8 (1994):
584-596.

Smolove, J. "Voice of the Torturer: An Abducted Girl's Mother Helps Track a
Man Who May Have Harassed Her by Phone for Two Decades." Time
146(25) (December 18, 1995): 51.

Snow, R.L. Stopping a Stalker: A Cop's Guide to Making the System Work
for You (New York, NY: Plenum, 1998).

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

Soyka, M., G. Naber, and A. Volcker. "Prevalence of Delusional Jealousy in
Different Psychiatric Disorders: An Analysis of 93 Cases." British Journal of
Psychiatry 158 (1991): 549-553.

Spence-Diehl, E. Stalking: A Handbook for Victims (Holmes Beach, FL:
Marketing Manager Learning Publications, 1999).

Spencer, A.C. "Stalking and the MMPI-2 in a Forensic Population." Ph.D.
dissertation. University of Detroit Mercy, 1998.

Spitzberg, B.H. "An Analysis of Empirical Estimates of Rape and Sexual
Coercion. Violence and Victims (In press).

Spitzberg, B.H. "Sexual Coercion." In The Dark Side of Close Relationships,
B.H. Spitzberg and W.R. Cupach, eds. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1998).

Spitzberg, B.H. "Intimate Violence." In Competence in Interpersonal Conflict,
W.R. Cupach and D.J. Canary, eds. (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1997):
174-201.

Spitzberg, B.H., A.M. Nicastro, et al. "Exploring the Interactional Phenomenon
of Stalking and Obsessive Relational Intrusion." Communication Report 11(1)
(Winter 1998): 33-48.

Spitzberg, B.H., and J. Rhea. "Obsessive Relational Intrusion and Sexual
Coercion Victimization." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14 (1999): 3-20.

Stalking and Domestic Violence: The Third Annual Report to Congress Under
the Violence Against Women Act (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, 1998).

"Stalking: It's More Than Just a TV Star's Gag Material." Security Management
Bulletin 2416 (August 25, 1995): 1-3.

Stasi, L. "Someone Is Stalking Me." Ladies Home Journal 114(1) (January
1997): 323+.

State Justice Institute. Validity and Use of Evidence Concerning Battering and
Its Effects in Criminal Trials: Report Responding to Section 40507 of the
Violence Against Women Act (Alexandria, VA: State Justice Institute, 1996).


Stearns, H.M. "Stalking Stuffers: A Revolutionary Law To Keep Predators
Behind Bars." Santa Clara Law Review 35 (1995): 1027+.

Steinman, L.I. "Despite Anti-Stalking Laws, Stalkers Continue To Stalk: Are
These Laws Constitutional and Effective?" St. Thomas Law Review 6 (1993):
213+.

Strack, Gail. "Questions for Domestic Violence: Police Follow-Up
Investigation." San Diego City Attorney's Office, December 1997.

Streshinsky, S. "The Stalker and His Prey." Glamour (August 1992): 238+.

Strikis, S.A. "Stopping Stalking." Georgetown Law Journal 81 (August 1993):
2771+.

"Study Shows Stalking Is Serious Problem." Jet (December 22, 1997): 24.

Sweeney, H.M. The Professional Paranoid: How To Fight Back If Stalked,
Surveilled, Investigated, or Targeted by Any Agency, Organization, or
Individual (Venice, CA: Feral House, 1998).

Taibbi, R. "Stalking." Current Health 21(6) (February 1995): 18+.

Tain, P. "Stalking in the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) R. v. Liddle."
Solicitors Journal 808(1) (August 20, 1999).

Tarrier, N., and R. Beckett. "Morbid Jealousy: A Review and
Cognitive-Behavioural Formulation." British Journal of Psychiatry 157 (1990):
319-326.

Tharp, M. "In the Mind of a Stalker." US News & World Report (February
17, 1992): 28+.

Thomas, K.R. "The Problem of the Persistent Suitor." Federal Bar News &
Journal 41(9) (October 1994): 620-625.

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

Thomas, K.R. Anti-Stalking Statutes: Background and Constitutional Analysis
(Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress,
1992).


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

Timmreck, T.C. "Overcoming the Loss of a Love: Preventing Love Addiction
and Promoting Positive Emotional Health." Psychological Reports 66 (1990):
512-528.

Tjaden, P. The Crime of Stalking: How Big Is the Problem? Research Preview
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
November 1997).

Tjaden, P., and N. Thoennes. Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of
Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against
Women Survey. Research in Brief (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1998).

Tjaden, P., and N. Thoennes. Stalking in America: Findings From the National
Violence Against Women Survey. Research in Brief (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1998).

Tolhurst, K.W. "A Search for Solutions: Evaluating the Latest Anti-Stalking
Developments and the National Institute of Justice Model Stalking Code."
William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law 1(1) (Fall 1994): 269.

Toobin, J. "Annals of Law: Stalking in L.A." The New Yorker 73(2) (February
1997): 72.

Travegia, E., and S. Hutter. "I Was Terrorized by a Stalker!" YM 41(9)
(November 1993): 60+.

Truppa, M. "Suburban Prosecutors Call Stalking Law Too Strict." Chicago
Daily Law Bulletin (February 12, 1993): 3.

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

Turl, P. "Stalking Is a Public Problem." The New Law Journal 144(6647)
(May 1994): 632.

Tuston, A., and J.C. Smith. "Case and Comment: Inflicting Harm." Criminal
Law Review (May 1996): 331-334.


Tuten, L., and E. Sherman. "I Was Stalked." McCall's 122(1) (August 1995):
55+.

Urick, M. Women in Danger: How To Avoid Domestic Violence, Stalking,
Rape, and Other Violent Crimes (Flint, MI: Burnishing Tree, 1995).

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Report on the Interstate
Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996. 104th Cong., 2d Sess., May
6, 1996, Rept. 104-557 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1996).

U.S. Congress. House. Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the
Committee on the Judiciary. Crimes of Violence Motivated by Gender.
Hearing, November 16, 1993 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,
1993).

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Combating Violence
Against Women: Hearing May 16, 1996, on S. 1729, a Bill To Amend Title
18, United States Code, With Respect to Stalking. 104th Cong., 2d Sess.,
Rept. 104-842 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1994).

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Antistalking Proposals:
Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary on Combating Stalking and
Family Violence. 103d Cong., 1st Sess., March 17, 1993, Rept. 103-206
(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993).

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Antistalking Legislation:
Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Committee. 102d Cong., 2d Sess.,
September 19, 1992 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1992).

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Antistalking Legislation:
Hearing September 29, 1992, on S.2922, a Bill To Assist the States in the
Enactment of Legislation To Address the Criminal Act of Stalking Other
Persons.102d Cong., 2d Sess., Rept. 102-1073 (Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, 1992).

Varn, R.J., and C. McNeal. "Point/Counterpoint: Are Anti-Stalking Laws
Fatally Flawed?" State Government News 36(8) (August 1993): 9.

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

Walker, L.E., and J.R. Meloy. "Stalking and Domestic Violence." In The
Psychology of Stalking, J.R. Meloy, ed. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
1998).

Wallace, H. Family Violence: Legal, Medical, and Social Perspectives
(Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1996).

Wallace, H. "A Prosecutor's Guide to Stalking." The Prosecutor 29(1) (1995):
26-30.

Wallace, H. "Stalkers: The Constitution and Victim Remedies." Criminal Justice
10(1) (Spring 1995): 16-19.

Wallace, H., and K. Kelty. "Stalking and Restraining Orders: A Legal and
Psychological Perspective." Journal of Crime and Justice 18(2) (1995): 99-
111.

Wallace, J.H., and J. Silverman. "Stalking and Post Traumatic Stress
Syndrome." Police Journal 69(3) (1996): 203-206.

Wallis, M. "Outlawing Stalkers." Policing Today (UK) 2(4) (1996): 25-29.

Walsh, K.L. "Comment: Safe and Sound at Last? Federalized Anti-Stalking
Legislation in the United States and Canada." Dickinson Journal of International
Law 14 (Winter 1996): 373.

Ward, C. "Minnesota's Anti-Stalking Statute: A Durable Tool to Protect
Victims From Terroristic Behavior." Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory
and Practice 12(2) (June 1994): 613-647.

Warner, P.K. "Aural Assault: Obscene Telephone Calls." Qualitative Sociology
11 (1988): 302-318.

Waugh, D. "Stalking." Canadian Medical Association Journal 154(7) (April
1996): 1088.

Way, C.R. "The Criminalization of Stalking: An Exercise in Media Manipulation
and Political Opportunism." McGill Law Journal 39(2) (June 1994): 379.

Welch, J.M. "Stalking and Anti-Stalking Legislation: A Guide to the Literature
of a New Legal Concept." RSR: Reference Services Review 213(3) (1995):
53.

Wells, C. "Stalking: The Criminal Law Response." Criminal Law Review 7(7)
(July 1997): 463-470.

Wells, K. "Stalker Interviews Are Crucial." Law Enforcement Quarterly
(November 1996-January 1997): 9-12, 31.

Wells, K. "California's Anti-Stalking Law a First." Law Enforcement Quarterly
(August-October 1996): 1-12.

Westrup, D. "Applying Functional Analysis to Stalking Behavior." In The
Psychology of Stalking, J.R. Meloy, ed. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
1998).

Westrup, D., and W.J. Fremouw. "Stalking Behavior: A Literature Review and
Suggested Functional Analytic Assessment Technology." Aggression and
Violent Behavior: A Review Journal (in press).

Westrup, D., et al. "The Psychological Impact of Stalking on Female
Undergraduates." Journal of Forensic Science 44(3) (May 1999): 554-557.

Wexler, S. "Crime of Stalking." Law Enforcement Technology 25(6) (June
1998): 34-37.

White, S.G., and J.S. Cawood. "Threat Management of Stalking Cases." In
The Psychology of Stalking, J.R. Meloy, ed. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
1998).

Whitelaw, K. "Fear and Dread in Cyberspace." US News & World Report
121(18) (November 4, 1996): 50.

Whitney, K. "Western Australia's New Stalking Legislation." The University of
Western Australia Law Review 28(2) (July 1999): 293+

Wickens, J.C. "Michigan's New Anti-Stalking Laws: Good Intentions Gone
Awry." Detroit College of Law Review 1994(1) (Spring 1994): 157-209.

Williams, W.L., J. Lane, and M.A. Zona. "Stalking: Successful Intervention
Strategies." Police Chief 63(2) (February 1996): 24-26.

Wills, C. "Stalking: The Criminal Law Response." Criminal Law Review (July
1997): 463-470.

Wisconsin Department of Justice. Report of 1996 Arrests for
Stalking/Harassment in Wisconsin (Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of
Justice, 1996).

Wolffe, B. "Stalking Workplace Violence: Threats to Employees Require
Prompt and Reasonable Responses by Management." Legal Times (May 29,
1995): 32.

Wright, C. Everything You Need to Know About Dealing With Stalking
(Newburyport, MA: Rosen Publishing, 1999).

Wright, J.A., A.G. Burgess, A.W. Burgess, and A.T. Laszlo. "A Typology of
Interpersonal Stalking." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 11(4) (December
1996): 487-502.

Wright, J.A., A.G. Burgess, and J.E. Douglas. "Investigating Stalking Crimes."
Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health 33(9) (September 1995):
38.

Yearwood, D.L., and R.L. Lubitz. "Domestic Violence in North Carolina:
Utilizing Court Data for Policy Formulation." Justice Research and Policy 1(1)
(1999): 51-66.

Zona, M.A., R.E. Palarea, and J.C. Lane. "Psychiatric Diagnosis and the
Offender-Victim Typology of Stalking." In The Psychology of Stalking, J.R.
Meloy, ed. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998).

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

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

For copies of this report, please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
(800) 851-3420
e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

Violence Against Women Office
Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20531
Telephone: (202) 616-8894
Fax: (202) 305-2589
Home page: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo

You can view or obtain an electronic version of this document from the VAWO
home page at the above address.