A Dorchester District Court Judge denied the request of a female Boston Police Officer to extend a temporary restraining order issued against a male colleague. According to The Boston Herald, the female officer claimed that the fellow officer raped her back in August when they attended a shooting competition in Connecticut and shared a hotel room. Boston.com reports that during the hearing the woman claimed that she was raped three times on August 25th in a hotel room that she shared with two other officers. According to reports, she reported the rape after determining that she was pregnant and that the defendant could be the father of the baby.
The plaintiff testified that despite her position that she is in fear of the defendant, she sent over 100 text messages to him following the alleged rapes. Additionally, she admitted that after the alleged incidents she requested to be transferred to the Special Operations Unit where the defendant was working. Although all of the facts of this case are not known, the obvious question is, if she was fearful of the defendant, why did she want to be transferred to his unit?
In Massachusetts M.G.L.c. 209A states that a person “suffering from abuse” by a “family or household member” may seek protection from such abuse by application to the court for an order requiring the defendant (among other measures) to refrain from abusing or contacting the victim. “Abuse” is defined by the statute as acts “(a) attempting to cause or causing physical harm; (b) placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm; or (c) causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat or duress.” In deciding whether to issue such a c. 209A order, a judge must consider carefully whether serious physical harm is imminent. “Generalized apprehension, nervousness, feeling aggravated or hassled, i.e., psychological distress from vexing but nonphysical intercourse, when there is no threat of imminent serious physical harm, does not rise to the level of fear of imminent serious physical harm.” Criminal cases that result from an alleged violation of a restraining order are often categorized as cases of domestic violence.
According to the Boston Herald, in this case the judge held that the plaintiff could not establish the type of “relationship” that is required by the statute to extend the order. It also appears, that based on these facts, the plaintiff really did not fear the defendant because she continued to contact him. Also, the fact that the alleged incident occurred over a month ago could impugn her position that she was in fear of “imminent” physical harm.
If a restraining order has been placed on you it is important that you have an experienced lawyer on your side. Our Attorney has successfully vacated orders by presenting the defendant’s side of the case in local courts including Peabody and Malden. Our Attorney will spend the necessary time to prepare for the hearing in order to demonstrate that the the order should not be extended because the pair does not have the type of relationship that he statute is designed to protect and/or that the plaintiff has made up the allegations because of a bad break up or divorce. Contact Our Attorneyor if you have been served with a restraining order and want experience on your side!