I'll get you and your little dog, too
It's little wonder that average folks lose respect for the law when there are so many screwy statutes on the books. This one came to me from the American Bar Association Journal describing a new law in Maine that allows the addition of pets to restraining orders. Like many things in life, this is not a simple matter and probably justified as it relates primarily to domestic relations (divorce and spousal battery) cases in which the offender threatens to harm a pet if the significant other decides to leave the relationship or to press domestic violence charges.
OK, so why does this subject belong in a blog describing technology on the North Coast? Because the law, like seemingly everything nowadays, is as much about technology as it is about legalities.
As a court management consultant, I have been involved in nationwide initiatives attempting to solve the thorny problem of enforcing domestic relations restraining orders across state lines. Since we are an increasingly mobile society, it is not unusual for domestic partners to obtain a restraining order (also known as a "keep away" order) in one state, yet have an encounter with the significant other in a different state. How does law enforcement verify that: (a) a restraining order exists, (b) is valid, and (c) pertains to identifiable individuals?
While it may appear to some that creating a massive database is the answer, this is not an easily achievable feat. First of all, the "data elements" in a restraining order are not consistent state-to-state. Second, putting together a database means that someone has to keep it up to date with adequate privacy protections. Third, there has been an age-old problem of legal recognition of the validity of these orders from one jurisdiction to the next.
Slowly, the legal, law enforcement and technology communities have come together with surprisingly successful results. The first step was to work for legal recognition of restraining orders by all jurisdictions. This has not only been achieved (largely), but the tribes are also included, which is a huge advancement considering the separate sovereignty that tribes have. The second step was to develop a model restraining order form with a cover sheet containing a set number of uniform data elements. Since some states' restraining orders run several pages, it was important to have all the vital information up front and uniform. Third, each state has developed a statewide database of restraining orders for use internally and externally as needed by courts and law enforcement. The next step is to develop a secure ID card that could be easily carried to prove on the spot that a valid restraining order exists.
News that the state of Maine has added pets as allowable restraining order petitioners gives me a tech brain cramp. It is difficult enough to describe a person sufficiently to allow identification on the street ... how do you describe a dog, hamster, frog or cat? Do we now have to take DNA samples and record the DNA code in a database? Do we indicate that they respond when called by their name?
Still, these and similar screwy laws are a sort of full-employment-act for me and my colleagues who will undoubtedly get called in to develop solutions. You can bet that the solutions will involve technology.
Sit, stay, good boy !!
Chris Crawford
www.justiceserved.com