No 3rd Party Contact Clarification

[EasilyDistracted03]

My question involves restraining orders in the State of: Illinois
I am seeking clarification regarding the 3rd party contact rule. Does this include discussing the protected party at all with someone else or even saying her name. To be more specific responding to another person's text message where they express how they feel about the protected party and the respondent agreed with them. No message was given in order for her to hear it. It was a conversation about her. Is that a violation under 3rd party rule?
Thanks

[jk]

The third party contact rule is you can’t have others “pass along” messages of any sort. While not a strict violation, I would suggest that if you know a person you spoke to is passing along information, even if it isn’t at your suggestion or request, that you do not discuss the protected person or any incident involving the protected party. It doesn’t take much to turn some statements into threats or intimidation.


here is the verbiage from one particular statute regarding orders of protection.

Stay away" means to refrain from both physical presence and nonphysical contact with the petitioner directly, indirectly, or through third parties who may or may not know of the order. "Nonphysical contact" includes, but is not limited to, telephone calls, mail, e-mail, fax, and written notes. (Source: P.A. 96-311, eff. 1-1-10.)

[llworking]

My question involves restraining orders in the State of: Illinois
I am seeking clarification regarding the 3rd party contact rule. Does this include discussing the protected party at all with someone else or even saying her name. To be more specific responding to another person's text message where they express how they feel about the protected party and the respondent agreed with them. No message was given in order for her to hear it. It was a conversation about her. Is that a violation under 3rd party rule?
Thanks

Your problem isn't talking to other people about her. Your problem kicks in when and if that information gets back to her, and in what manner it gets back to her.

If you trust that someone you talk to about her won't discuss it with anyone else, then it might be safe.

[jk]

Your problem isn't talking to other people about her. Your problem kicks in when and if that information gets back to her, and in what manner it gets back to her.

If you trust that someone you talk to about her won't discuss it with anyone else, then it might be safe.

The info getting back to her is irrelevant. A restrained party is not prohibited to speak of the restraining party. It’s that they cannot contact them in any way including through a third party.

simply put; the restrained party cannot have contact in any form with the restraining Party. That means a third party cannot pass along a message or even something such as delivering flowers to the restraining party.

[EasilyDistracted03]

Thank you so much for the clarification. I understand this so much better now. Basically the only way to play it safe is to remove the protected party's name from your vocabulary. I very much appreciate you taking time to respond!

[llworking]

The info getting back to her is irrelevant. A restrained party is not prohibited to speak of the restraining party. It’s that they cannot contact them in any way including through a third party.

simply put; the restrained party cannot have contact in any form with the restraining Party. That means a third party cannot pass along a message or even something such as delivering flowers to the restraining party.

Let me give you an example of how you could be wrong.

Joe contacts Bob and says, "I am so sorry that Jane has been such a #itch to you getting that restraining order". Bob joins into the conversation and they say nasty things about Jane.

Joe then turns around and tells his girlfriend about the conversation. The girlfriend is a dramallama and turns around and posts on facebook, addressing Jane directly and tells her that she is a horrible #itch because Bob says so.

Whether Bob intended for Joe's girlfriend to be his third party contact with Jane, the perception is going to be that he intended that and that is going to cause him some grief. That is why it matters who he vents to about his situation with Jane and the protection order.

Another example could be another family member of Bob's trying to convince Jane, all on his/her own to drop the protection order against Bob. While the family member was acting on their own, its still going to be perceived to be third party contact because of the nature of the contact.

[jk]

Let me give you an example of how you could be wrong.

Joe contacts Bob and says, "I am so sorry that Jane has been such a #itch to you getting that restraining order". Bob joins into the conversation and they say nasty things about Jane.

Joe then turns around and tells his girlfriend about the conversation. The girlfriend is a dramallama and turns around and posts on facebook, addressing Jane directly and tells her that she is a horrible #itch because Bob says so.

Whether Bob intended for Joe's girlfriend to be his third party contact with Jane, the perception is going to be that he intended that and that is going to cause him some grief. That is why it matters who he vents to about his situation with Jane and the protection order.

Another example could be another family member of Bob's trying to convince Jane, all on his/her own to drop the protection order against Bob. While the family member was acting on their own, its still going to be perceived to be third party contact because of the nature of the contact.

i disagree. Bob has to intend for the statement to be delivered to Jane. That can include situations where Bob would make a statement to a particular person with presumption it will be relayed to Jane. Bob is free to comment on janes personality all he wishes without it violating the order. His 1st amendment rights are not inhibited. It is only communicating with Jane that is prohibited.

now if bob made the statement knowing it would play out as you describe, it might be interpreted he did intend to communicate with Jane and as such a violation. Of course proving Bob knew it would play out as you describe could be problematic.




your second example also doesn’t violate the order because Bob made no attempt to contact Jane nor have any statement relayed to her.

but this sort of situation is similar to my statement of being careful who you say what to as it can be (improperly) interpreted as an attempt to communicate with Jane if bob makes a statement he knows will be relayed to Jane, even if he has no desire it be relayed. It isn’t a violation in itself but depending on who is interpreting it and precisely what is said as well as all facts surrounding the matter,, it could be interpreted to be an attempt to communicate with Jane.

He has to intend the communication be delivered to Jane to violate the order. A court may admonish Bob to caution his family against contacting Jane. Appearances can lead one to believe Bob has violated the order even if he hasn’t. If the court accepts Bobs statement he is not behind the contact, Bob won’t be held liable for his family’s actions. He has no ability nor right to control another’s actions. if Jane doesn’t want contact with bobs family, she needs to tell them to leave her alone and if they refuse to, she can seek an RO against them.

[llworking]

i disagree. Bob has to intend for the statement to be delivered to Jane. That can include situations where Bob would make a statement to a particular person with presumption it will be relayed to Jane. Bob is free to comment on janes personality all he wishes without it violating the order. His 1st amendment rights are not inhibited. It is only communicating with Jane that is prohibited.

now if bob made the statement knowing it would play out as you describe, it might be interpreted he did intend to communicate with Jane and as such a violation. Of course proving Bob knew it would play out as you describe could be problematic.




your second example also doesn’t violate the order because Bob made no attempt to contact Jane nor have any statement relayed to her.

but this sort of situation is similar to my statement of being careful who you say what to as it can be (improperly) interpreted as an attempt to communicate with Jane if bob makes a statement he knows will be relayed to Jane, even if he has no desire it be relayed. It isn’t a violation in itself but depending on who is interpreting it and precisely what is said as well as all facts surrounding the matter,, it could be interpreted to be an attempt to communicate with Jane.

He has to intend the communication be delivered to Jane to violate the order. A court may admonish Bob to caution his family against contacting Jane. Appearances can lead one to believe Bob has violated the order even if he hasn’t. If the court accepts Bobs statement he is not behind the contact, Bob won’t be held liable for his family’s actions. He has no ability nor right to control another’s actions. if Jane doesn’t want contact with bobs family, she needs to tell them to leave her alone and if they refuse to, she can seek an RO against them.

Many years ago, when my daughter was a minor, I had to get a restraining order against a boy at her school. While the temporary order was pending until we got a full hearing, some friends of the boy were harassing my daughter.

When that harassment came up during the hearing the judge ripped the boy a new one for his friends' behavior. The boy's attorney made the argument that the boy had no control over his friends' behavior. The judge responded with "he better get some control because if his friends say one more word to this girl, I WILL violate him".

So, perception DOES matter a great deal. If it can be perceived that someone wanted or encouraged the communication, it can be percieved as third party communication and can be a problem for the person. Since the restrained person does not want that to happen, the restrained person needs to be careful.

[cdwjava]

I cannot say what the law might be in Illinois, but out here third party contact through a variety of, arguably, unintentional means can still result in convictions. There are a number of ways by which sneaky SOBs manage to maneuver circumstances to contact the protected party while feigning innocence. The most creative one came about by way of the restrained party posting to his Facebook page derogatory comments, vague statements about a gun and opining that his life would be so much better if his ex were dead or she could simply stop fighting him for support. He argued at trial that his FB page was closed and that none of his ex's immediate family or associates were "friends." What he neglected to clarify was that their children were "friends" and that it was reasonable to assume that one of them might relay this to mom. What happened was that one of the kids relayed it to grandma (mom's mom) who related it to mom. He was convicted of stalking and criminal threats on top of the previous multiple convictions for unlawful electronic communications for which he was on probation. Oops!

The point is that it's not a good idea to try and game the concept with a wink and a nod. Just don't bring her up if you want to be entirely safe.

[jk]

Many years ago, when my daughter was a minor, I had to get a restraining order against a boy at her school. While the temporary order was pending until we got a full hearing, some friends of the boy were harassing my daughter.

When that harassment came up during the hearing the judge ripped the boy a new one for his friends' behavior. The boy's attorney made the argument that the boy had no control over his friends' behavior. The judge responded with "he better get some control because if his friends say one more word to this girl, I WILL violate him".

So, perception DOES matter a great deal. If it can be perceived that someone wanted or encouraged the communication, it can be percieved as third party communication and can be a problem for the person. Since the restrained person does not want that to happen, the restrained person needs to be careful.

And I can tell you after some very specific discussions with both an attorney and the restrained party’s probation officer that the Facebook sort of situation you described would not be considered a violation. The contact has to have the air of an attempt to communicate. While an issue may be interpreted as an attempt to contact the protected party but unless it is believed to be an attempt to communicate, it does not violate the order. The general statements by other parties will not be ruled a violation unless the court can reasonably assert it is an actual surreptitious attempt to make contact.

If it is not believed to be an attempt to make contact or deliver a message from the restrained party, it is not a violation regardless what was said.

In your situation with your daughter it is an easy to make connection that his friends were harassing your daughter due to requests by the restrained party so, again, it isn’t just a third party making a statement. It’s that the court believed the harassment was at the behest, urging, or at least requests from the restrained party. That is why the court made the statement they did. It wasn’t simply that his friends were harassing the girl because yes, encouraging or requesting such contact is obviously a violation of the order.

carl, even in your statement it’s not that a third party simply made a statement and it became known by the protected party. It is the court believing the restrained party was behind it. I don’t disagree with that statement.

of course the charged party does also have the right to defend the charges where they will be able to bring witnesses and and any other evidence found to prove the contact was not at their request or desire.

The point is that it's not a good idea to try and game the concept with a wink and a nod. Just don't bring her up if you want to be entirely safe.

i believe that’s pretty much what I said.