[charlesa6]

recovery will be based on his or her
damages and will not be subject to a
statutory limit.
- M. Aucutt and R. Ruderman
Victims Resource Center Page No.5 Summer 1994
California's Anti-Stalking Legislation
In 1989, actress Rebecca Schaeffer was
murdered by an obsessed fan. That same
year, five Orange County women were
killed within a month and a half of each
other by former husbands or boyfriends. In
each case, the victims had voiced concern or
fear to family, friends, or police that their
lives were in danger. In 1990, the
California legislature responded to these
types of incidents by enacting the nation's
first criminal anti-stalking law. Over 30
states now have anti-stalking laws similar to
California's statute. Connecticut recently
adopted a statute after publicity surrounding
the stalking of late night talk show host
David Letterman. Although media coverage
of stalking behavior often focuses on
celebrities, Detective Greg Boles of the Los
Angeles Police Department's Threat
Management Unit estimates that over 70%
of the stalking cases they handle involve
ordinary citizens. Stalking cases have also
arisen in the work place and are most
frequent in conjunction with domestic
violence cases.
California's statute, found in section
646.9 of the Penal Code, defines stalking as
willful, malicious, and repeated following or
harassment which presents a credible threat
with the intent to place the victim in
reasonable fear for his or her safety or the
safety of his or her immediate family.
Stalking behavior is expressed by a wide
range of conduct, including phone calls,
continual following, sending letters or gifts,
destruction of property or entering a victim's
house when no one is home and moving
things around or going through personal
belongings.
Prior to the enactment of §646.9, criminal
action against the offender was often limited
unless property damage or personal injury
occurred. Consequently, the harassing
behavior often escalated to a severe and
extreme magnitude, including death, prior to
effective preventive action being taken.
Section 646.9 now allows law enforcement
to take action and file criminal charges as a
direct result of the proscribed behavior,
despite the fact that the victim has not been
physically injured. Kate Killeen, supervisor
for the Sacramento District Attorney's
Domestic Violence Unit, believes
that the new laws are excellent in
allowing the District Attorney's
office to take action prior to the
occurrence of any physical assault
as well as in providing a better
safety net for the victim.
The statute addresses stalking in
terms of following or harassment.
Harassment is defined within
§646.9 as a "knowing and willful
course of conduct directed at a
specific person which seriously
alarms, annoys, torments, or
terrorizes the person, and which
serves no legitimate purpose. " In
addition, the conduct must cause a
reasonable person to suffer
emotional distress and must occur
repeatedly. This repeated" course
of conduct" must consist of a
pattern or "series of acts over a
period of time, however short,
evidencing a continuity of
purpose." In any case, the
proscribed conduct must occur
more than once. Detective Boles
encourages victims to document all
behavior which may constitute
stalking and believes that in order
to make the anti-stalking statute
effective and protect potential
victims from more dangerousharm,
"the police need to know and be
aware that the conduct is going
on. " Stalking victims are also
encouraged to obtain restraining
orders, both to serve as a deterrent
and as documentation of the
behavior.
Since 1990, the anti-stalking
statute has undergone several
amendments. Most significantly,
these changes have affected the
classification of stalking as either a
misdemeanor or felony. Earlier
versions defined stalking primarily
as a misdemeanor; however, if the
behavior was in violation of a
restraining order or occurred within
seven years of an earlier stalking
conviction, the offense could have
been classified either as a felony or