Keeping abusers away
Done right, GPS tracking can help protect victims
Protection-from-abuse orders are a viable means of safeguarding victims of domestic abuse from further harm. The means of enforcing PFAs can be improved, however, and GPS monitoring of certain defendants affords one opportunity. With appropriate legislation, the monitoring can occur without violating a defendant’s due process rights and triggering a civil rights lawsuit.
In some parts of the country, GPS monitoring already is used at certain stages of the legal process to ensure that defendants keep the required distance from those who filed for PFAs. If the defendant gets too close, the device alerts authorities and perhaps victims as well.
The concept has been kicked around in Pennsylvania for years, but the October murder of University of Pittsburgh student Alina Sheykhet galvanized interest here. Ms. Sheykhet’s onetime boyfriend, Matthew Darby, has been charged with her death. At the time, Ms. Sheykhet had a temporary PFA against him and had been seeking to make the order permanent.
On Dec. 12, the state Senate unanimously passed a bill, sponsored by Democrat Vincent Hughes of Philadelphia, that would allow judges to impose GPS monitoring on defendants “found to present a substantial risk” of violating a permanent PFA or committing another crime against the victim punishable by imprisonment. If the legislation passes the House and is signed by Gov. Tom Wolf, it will be known as “Alina’s Law.”
Civil rights advocates have raised concerns, saying the legislation essentially would allow judges to impose punishment before a crime has been committed. Other cities and states debating the use of monitoring also have wrestled with the issue. The concern is valid, which is why the Legislature could alter its approach.
Currently, defendants who violate preliminary or final PFAs may be charged with indirect contempt, an offense punishable by up to six months in jail. The Legislature should pass legislation requiring judges to give defendants who violate PFAs the option of jail time or electronic monitoring. This would alleviate the due process concerns while keeping violators away from victims in one way or the other.
While this would be one more weapon for authorities to deploy in the battle against domestic violence, it would not make the system perfect. Other changes also are needed.
For example, PFAs should be treated like other court orders and served by law enforcement officers without the assistance of victims. Right now, victims must take PFAs to a local police department and ask to have them served on the defendants. Ms. Sheykhet didn’t understand that — evidently, no one told her — so her preliminary PFA wasn’t served on Mr. Darby until 14 days after it was issued.
Better use of the bond system also is needed. At the time Ms. Sheykhet sought the PFA against Mr. Darby, alleging he had broken into her apartment, he was on bond for rape charges in Indiana County. Officials in Indiana should have moved to revoke his bond based on the PFA and a related criminal trespass charge filed against him here. Or perhaps he should have been denied bond here because of the charges against him in Indiana.
It’s important to keep a focus on domestic violence and how better to protect victims. Electronic monitoring is one valid idea, and there is some scholarly research to suggest it has worked as intended in other locations. In an effort to avoid constitutional challenges, however, the Legislature should revise Mr. Hughes’ bill. Judges should be free to authorize electronic monitoring when a PFA has been violated, not when they think one might be.