Advertisement

Carlton: The dark ages for domestic violence

 
Published Aug. 12, 2016

He hit her on a weekend, when the courthouse where she could file for a restraining order to keep him away was closed.

She had gotten herself somewhere safe. She called the local domestic violence shelter, but no workers deputized as court clerks were available to take her sworn statement about what happened to her. And that was the document a weekend-duty judge would consider in deciding whether to grant her protection.

But surely, in this day of routine e-filing of court documents, at a time when cellphones and iPads are as common as wristwatches, she could swear that oath remotely. Right?

Surely, in the year 2016, a system intended to protect victims (even alleged victims) would have a way to make this happen: Why couldn't a person who might have good reason for not wanting to travel to a courthouse or shelter instead hold her driver's license next to her face, swear she is who she is, give sworn testimony about what happened, and — through the magic of Skype or FaceTime — have it processed electronically?

"This is ridiculous in this day and age when we have electronic access," says Hills­borough Court Clerk Pat Frank.

So a lawyer for Hillsborough courts looked at the law and said:

Nope, apparently not.

Court rules and case law harkening back to before we were all glued to our screens for everything from attending meetings in faraway cities to ordering pizza with extra cheese indicate an oath must be administered in person.

Even an appeals court weighing in on the matter determined that a valid oath requires "the presence of an officer authorized to administer oaths."

"From the context of these authorities, it is apparent that present and presence mean physical presence, not remote and electronic presence," court counsel Dave Rowland wrote in an email to Frank's office.

Now how does this make sense, particularly in highly sensitive cases in which a victim has found safe haven? What about people without funds for transportation? Why should someone have to make that initial trek to the courthouse — where, by the way, accused abusers have been known to roam — or to a shelter, just to get the process of protection started?

"I just think we have to think of a better way of doing this," Frank says.

Hillsborough's Chief Judge Ron Ficarrotta does not disagree. "I'm open-minded to it, I welcome technology and I think it would benefit those in need," he says. (Interestingly, he is another town altogether and signing court orders when I call to ask him about all this — an act made possible through the magic of all that technology out there.)

But it appears that changing outdated limits on how this gets done can't just come through the local courthouse, particularly if it would be inconsistent with current rules and the law. Everyone in the mix seems to agree it would take Tallahassee to fix this.

Hello, Legislature?

Frank plans to meet with local lawmakers. "We have to change the law," she says, or at least get it caught up with the rest of us.

Sue Carlton can be reached at carlton@tampabay.com.