What Is A Protection Order publications
This law prohibits interstate or Indian Country violations of protection orders. If the perpetrator violates a qualifying protection order in Indian Country, he can be sentenced to up to twenty years imprisonment.
This federal law requires that, after he has been convicted of a federal offense of domestic violence, stalking, or violating a protection order, the perpetrator must pay the full amount of the victim's losses. Under this statute, the perpetrator must pay for (A) medical services relating to physical, psychiatric, or psychological care; (B) physical and occupational therapy or rehabilitation; (C) necessary transportation, temporary housing, and child care expenses; (D) lost income; (E) attorneys' fees, plus any costs incurred in obtaining a civil protection order; and (F) any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense. This restitution is not optional, and the trial court must award the victim these damages.
This federal law requires that qualifying protection orders issued by tribal courts must be given Full Faith and Credit by other jurisdictions, including other tribes and states.
This federal law requires that repeat perpetrators of sexual abuse must be sentenced to twice the amount of incarceration than otherwise provided within the federal code.
This law provides definitions that are relevant to the federal protection order, domestic abuse, and stalking laws.
This NIJ Report concludes that victims' views on the effectiveness of protection orders vary with how accessible the courts are for victims and how well established the links are between public and private services and support resources for victims.
This National Institute of Justice Research Report compares intimate partner victimization rates across gender, race, and same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants and examines the rate of injury, victims' use of medical services, and other risk factors.
This study, which was funded and distributed by the National Institute of Justice, examined whether police proactive enforcement of court-imposed no-contact orders (NCOs) on offenders in misdemeanor domestic violence cases increased victim knowledge about NCOs, reduced contact between offenders and victims, and increased victim safety and sense of well-being.
This study, funded and distributed by the National Institute of Justice, compared the effectiveness, enforcement, and cost-effectiveness of civil protective orders (POs) in protecting victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) in rural and urban areas of Kentucky.
This study, published in the National Institute of Justice Journal, examined the impact of civil protective orders against perpetrators of domestic violence on the safety of their victims in rural and urban jurisdictions.
This report, which was funded and distributed by the National Institute of Justice, discusses how pretrial innovations for domestic violence cases were implemented in three demonstration sites as part of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration project. The goal is to increase victim safety while holding offenders accountable. The report describes the pretrial strategies used, key aspects of their implementation, and lessons learned for other jurisdictions wishing to try similar innovations.
This federally study, which was funded and distributed by the National Institute of Justice, explored the capacity of Limited English Proficient (LEP) petitioners, specifically battered women to receive orders of protection.
This Territorial Protection Order Registration Matrix provides advocates with statutory information on each jurisdiction's registration provisions.
This case addresses two important issues concerning protection orders. The first issue the court decided was that, under Minnesota law, the defendant has no clear right to appeal issuance of pretrial domestic-abuse no-contact order (DANCO). Thus, the only opportunity for a defendant's challenge to constitutionality or legitimacy of the DANCO is through a subsequent criminal trial for violating the DANCO. Even if the defendant waits until a criminal trial for violating the DANCO, there is no requirement that the trial court has to consider the constitutionality of the DANCO. Next, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that DANCOs are constitutional and do not violate the respondent's due process rights.