Defining Good Cause in a Protective Order Request
The standard for a judge to grant a full civil protective order at a hearing is to find that there is good cause that the respondent committed an offense against the petitioner. The judge does not have to find that the respondent committed every offense alleged by the petitioner.
As long as the judge finds good cause that the respondent committed at least one offense against the petitioner, the judge can grant the petitioner’s request for a CPO. The standard of good cause is a lower evidence standard.
Providing Proof
However, the petitioner still bears the burden of proof. The petitioner must prove that it is more likely than not that the respondent committed an offense. That standard is much lower than the standard of proof in a criminal case. In a criminal case, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed a crime. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a higher legal standard. The judge or jury must find, to a high degree of confidence, that a person committed a crime to be able to convict that person.
If the jury or judge in the criminal case had any reason to doubt the allegations made by the prosecutor, the jury or judge acquits the person on trial. The standard in a CPO is much lower than that. There could be a significant amount of doubt as to the allegations made against the respondent. As long as it is more than 50 percent likely that the petitioner’s version of events is the correct one, the judge can grant the CPO.
A Lower Standard
The standard in a CPO is lower because CPOs are not criminal cases. In criminal cases, the consequences are quite serious. The person faces jail time, a permanent criminal record, background checks, loss of jobs, lengthy periods of probation, and other significant consequences.
A high degree of confidence is required by the judge or jury to find someone guilty in a criminal case. That is why the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil matter, the consequences are considered to be lower. A person cannot go to jail as a result of a CPO; they do not receive a criminal conviction on their record. Because of the lesser consequences in civil matters, the burden of proof on a petitioner is also less.
Requirements of Good Cause
In CPO cases, one of the first requirements for jurisdiction is that there must be an intra-family relationship between the two parties. For it to be granted beyond one year, the petitioner must show tangible evidence that there is a continuing fear to demonstrate good cause in a CPO request. There must be some action taken by a respondent that warrants the judge finding a continuing fear.
It cannot be an intangible fear, a hunch, or a possibility that there could be a continuing fear. There must be a tangible reason that a petitioner could show to a judge why there is continuing harm; not simply a generalized fear of the person.
Statements to Police
When a person speaks to a police officer at the scene of an alleged crime, those statements are usable as evidence against the person. Even if they think they are making statements that could help them, they are potentially incriminating themselves. A person should be aware that they always have a right to remain silent and the police are going to make an arrest when there is an accusation of a domestic offense, regardless of the strength or the weakness of the allegations.
A person should not attempt to negotiate with the police to try to avoid arrest because that could make their situation worse. They should contact a lawyer and let the lawyer follow the proper procedures for defending against the case through the appropriate channels. Getting legal assistance can make all the difference in avoiding some of the more severe consequences that accompany these kinds of cases.