Last week in the Detroit Free Press, L.L. Brasier, contributed the piece “P.P.O. requests, petty spats clog up courts” which opened up “A rift between two neighbors over grass clippings, a potty-mouthed text messenger sending notes to a woman he barely knows and a squabble that began four years ago with an empty pizza box — all seemingly bad behavior by people who, it could be argued, should just learn to get along.”

The article also discusses that it has been 15 years since the legislature last acted on the issue of personal protection orders as a tool “against domestic violence.” In Michigan Domestic Violence “Personal Protection Orders” are found in the following sections of law for spouses, ex-spouses, and individuals engaged in stalking or other prohibited conduct beginning at MCL 600.2950 and then continuing sections MCLA 600.2950a-j.

With some jurisdictions claiming 25% and higher increases in personal protection order claims and orders, it may be time to look at their effectiveness and how they are being applied. In some jurisdictions it had been found that evidentiary standards were too low in civil restraining order cases because an individual that is claimed to be violating such an order is subjected to “immediate arrest.” This certainly raises certain constitutional issues with an individual being arrested without probably cause, and raising the evidentiary standard might definitely weed out the more silly claims.

The other issue is federal funding awards to states for the issuance of orders, which seems to cause a rush for judges to err on the side of caution rather than erring on the side that may be right. Federal funding awards to the states and subsequently to the courts seems to place prosecutors and judges in control of their own budgets and how they rule. Constitutional protections were put into place to prevent unnecessary intrusions into the peoples’ lives by their government and ultimately when followed prevents the courts from being clogged with frivolity in the first place.

A final note: Courts currently are performing under contracts rather than remaining impartial arbiters, and when over participation clogs our courts like what you see here, the time for reform to limit the number of cases is necessary. Limiting the caseload starts by increasing the burden of proof to a reasonable standard.