In another example of the bizarrely inflexible nature of restraining orders, John Yount was recently arrested for violating a restraining order that Kim Schreckengost had obtained against Yount on January 18, 2001. Yount was arrested at the Meadville district court where he and Schreckengost had gone to get married.
Rather than getting married, Yount was instead arrested, charged with violating the restraining order by being in Schreckengost’s presence, and shipped off to a county jail to await prosecution.
Appearing before District Justice William Chisolm, Yount said that both he and his fiancee were under the impression that once she chose to spoke to Yount again, that the protection order was null and void. In fact, of course, not only is that not true, but in many jurisdictions such protection orders are enforced even when the person who applied for the order takes active measures to establish contact with the person the order is taken out against.
Or, as Judge Chisolm summarized the current state of the law, “I don’t think you understand, the fact is, it doesn’t matter what she does, you already violated the order.”
In this case, Yount served 11 days in a county jail for a previous violation of the restraining order, and at that time the order had been extended an additional six months. At his arraignment following the botched marriage attempt, Yount was warned that any attempts to contact his fiancee by phone from jail would result in additional charges for violating the restraining order.
In many jurisdictions, the application of restraining orders was long ago pushed passed any and all reasonable bounds, and it is an area of law that is in need of serious re-examination and reform.
Source:
Man arrested at his wedding for violating PFA order filed by bride. Marianne Oberley-Orris, Meadville Tribune, September 27, 2001.