State's current PFA law in need of reform
By Jim Slinsky, PhillyBurbs.com, November 14, 2004

LINK

It has been months since we visited Pennsylvania's draconian Protection from Abuse (PFA) law.

I wrote passionately about HB 2403 introduced by Melissa Weber, R-148 (Montgomery). This was a horrendous piece of legislation that would have further assaulted our constitutional rights beyond the current terrible law. It was only a matter of time before a situation would occur that would illustrate how badly we need PFA reform.

The set-up for this column is straight from an Internet column by zwire.com. The incident began in September 2003. Beth Ann Kelly and James C. Mueller Jr. were boyfriend and girlfriend. The relationship obviously fell apart, and Kelly secured a PFA against Mueller claiming physical and verbal abuse. She further alleged that Mueller pointed his father's handgun at her head and threatened to kill her.

A Montgomery County judge lacked the proof to issue a search warrant, so he ordered a "warrantless search" of Mueller's home, vehicle and hunting cabin in the Poconos. Actually, Mueller lives with his parents, so the home and cabin belonged to his father. James Jr. signed an affidavit stating there were no guns in the house.

Kelly went back to court and convinced the judge that Mueller was being less than truthful. A second court order was issued to search the properties with "whatever force necessary" and seize all firearms. Firearms and archery equipment were found and seized.

The Muellers filed an appeal requesting the return of their property and questioned the authority of the judge to issue a "warrantless search." In a 2 to 1 ruling, a Superior Court panel agreed that the lower court judge had the authority within the PFA law to issue such an order. The dissenting judge took exception and declared he couldn't find any authority in our PFA law for warrantless searches without "probable cause" considerations.

The severity of a PFA order and its destruction of our liberties based on verbal allegations are terribly inconsistent with what we have come to understand as our basic civil rights. It seems so totally un-American to take the word of one person against another person with the force and consequences of our current PFA law.


Stories abound across this state about PFA orders being abused on a regular basis. Lawyers have become adept at advising clients to file PFA orders as leverage in custody battles and property settlements during divorce cases. PFAs can materialize out of sheer hatred in the nasty business of severing a relationship. A marital break-up caused by adultery is another common cause of filing a PFA. These situations are often emotional and life-altering. PFAs have become the legal weapon of choice to play rough. None of these abuses were the original intent of our PFA law.

The missing safeguard in the PFA debate is legal recourse for the protection of the accused. If one were punished financially and/or with jail time for filing a bogus PFA, the false allegations and the PFA leverage game would come to a quick halt. To my knowledge no such protection of the innocent exists in the current law.

As for Mueller's alleged threats against Kelly, why wasn't he arrested and a legal search warrant issued? Pointing a gun at someone's head is a serious matter. If Kelly's accusations were so convincing and compelling, why wasn't he jailed? I do know why, because it is the word of one person against another. Insufficient to jail him, but apparently sufficient to violate his basic civil rights with a warrantless search and seizure of his property.

All of this story is rotten to the core and stinks of PFA legislation that was neither well-conceived or well-thought out. We have legislation that is wide open for judicial interpretation, and even our judges can't agree on its exact limitations.

Our legislators need to quickly revisit our current PFA law and install our cherished American civil rights within its framework. As we are well aware it has literally become dangerous to leave interpretations of the law to our courts. Frankly, our state Supreme Court is currently having difficulty interpreting our constitution.

National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence: Protection Orders