It’s hard to tell whether this is a goad or a guarantee: “Find Restraining Order Records For Anyone Instantly!” Either way, it’s enticing.
If you’re dating someone and you’ve noticed how their temper gets out of control, before things go any further, check their record on Restraining Order Records. They might not have ever committed a crime, but if their name shows up on Restraining Order Records, you might think twice about pursuing this relationship.
Lawyers discount restraining orders as he said/she said matters: no biggie. Judges may also consider objections to them to be overstated—simply because they’ve been stated at all. These dismissals stand in stark contrast to the admonition: “Restraining Orders aren’t pleasant to think about, but the consequences can be worse. Check Restraining Order Records.”
Which appraisal of the significance of restraining orders do you think more closely corresponds to the public’s? (That is a rhetorical question, yes.)
The quoted material above is featured on the site PublicRecordsReview.com, which advertises the “Top Restraining Order Records Sites”: Instant Checkmate, United States Background Checks, Been Verified, U.S. People Records, and SpyFly.
Whether the returns from such sites can be relied upon is something the reader may investigate if s/he chooses; the writer doesn’t want to know. Whatever the case, however, the issuance of a civil restraining order represents a judicial ruling, and judicial rulings are public records. Here’s “why”:
Essential to the rule of law is the public performance of the judicial function. The public resolution of court cases and controversies affords accountability, fosters public confidence, and provides notice of the legal consequences of behaviors and choices.
[…]
The public in general and news media in particular have a qualified right of access to court proceedings and records. This right is rooted in the common law. The First Amendment also confers on the public a qualified right of access. In 1980, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment right of access to court proceedings includes the public’s right to attend criminal trials. The Court suggested that a similar right extends to civil trials…. Some courts of appeals have held that the public’s First Amendment right of access to court proceedings includes both criminal and civil cases (Timothy Reagan, “Sealing Court Records and Proceedings: A Pocket Guide”).
Although they’re civil instruments, restraining orders are associated with violent or otherwise criminally deviant behavior, so they’re recorded and preserved in statewide police databases and the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, which private investigator Brian Willingham calls the “closest thing to a nationwide criminal records check in the United States today” (italics added). They’re also recorded (virtually in perpetuity) at their courthouses of origin. Defendants named on domestic violence restraining orders may furthermore be entered into a domestic violence (specific) registry, possibly even if a temporary order against them is dismissed. The potential consequences to employment and even employability in certain fields could hardly be more obvious.
A profession as mundane as “substitute teacher” requires that its applicants undergo an FBI background check, and any interviewer may, of course, simply ask if a prospective employee has “ever been the subject of a restraining order.”
Ease of access to restraining order records by the general public differs from state to state. In Indiana, for example, it just takes an Internet connection. In other states, records aren’t as conveniently scrutinized.
That doesn’t, however, mean they’re inaccessible.
The animus behind advocacy for restraining orders is the animus behind all law related to violence against women. Whether advocates are anti-rape or anti-domestic-violence, the argument is the same: that the accused must be exposed so that (female) victims of violence will be encouraged to come forward. Publicity isn’t just incidental; it’s demanded.
Superficially, the demand isn’t without sympathy.
Restraining orders, however, are adjudicated in civil court. That means they’re matters instigated by private citizens whose allegations aren’t (necessarily) vetted by the authorities or by government prosecutors. They are, very literally, he said/she said prosecutions. Temporary restraining orders may be obtained in minutes based only on finger-pointing and feelings (“I’m afraid”), or on testimony that’s significantly or totally false (or even maliciously fabricated). The evidentiary bar is so low as to be skipped over—tra-la-la—and judicial bias is endemic and may even be mandated.
Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, famously observed decades ago, “Everyone knows restraining orders…are granted to virtually all who apply.”
The situation that obtains then is one of damning documents’ being generated on the basis of one or two protestations of fear or danger made to prejudiced judges in mere minutes-long procedures whose rulings are recorded indefinitely in public databases that any teen with a laptop and Daddy’s credit card can poke a zitty nose into from McDonald’s.
Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
Nick
April 11, 2016
Hello. I was served with three false R.O’s over a period of four years by the same person using different names. I went to court re: #1 and it was vacated. #2 came from out of state; the police who came to my door regarding it said they couldn’t give me the R.O. # or name of issuing court, as it came in over the phone! I was unable to respond, and assume it was allowed to stand, then expire. #3 also came from out of state, but I flew to it for a court appearance. It too was vacated, and the judge ordered my accuser to reimburse me for my legal fees, of which I never got a penny of course.
Question: I have never been arrested, never had legal problems in my entire life before this. Are records of these R.O’s and court dispositions of them “public record”, for anyone to see? Bothers me to think that even after being vacated – with me awarded reimbursement – that it might be so. Thanks.
LikeLike
Todd Greene
April 11, 2016
The short answer to your question, Nick, is yes.
Matthew Chan, who had an order dismissed by the Georgia Supreme Court last March and whose case was chronicled in The Washington Post, discovered a few months ago that the thing was still popping up in the system (and even showed as “in effect”).
If you’ve got rulings from judges that say the orders are “dismissed,” you could file motions with the respective courts to have the injunctions “expunged.”
LikeLike
Moderator
February 22, 2016
See also:
“What Can Be Done with Public Records, Like Restraining Orders, Arrests, and Convictions: A Tutorial for Judges and Everyone Who’s Been Lied about to One”
“States that MAY Allow Records of “Protective Orders” to be Expunged…and Why They’re So Few”
A search of this site using the term “restraining orders are public” will highlight additional posts.
LikeLike
Matthew S. Chan
January 23, 2015
I used myself as a guinea pig to see what might show up. It is a 9-minute, hyped-up, dog-and-pony show that is a long, painful sales pitch that takes advantage of the worst fears in people. It insinuates that there is deep, dark, secret information on someone. Obviously, I wasn’t concerned about that for myself and recorded the whole thing for everyone to see.
I went through this absolute, time-waster 3 freaking times to get the video to show everyone that things are not what they seem. It is a money grab. That whole spiel was based on my being anonymous and inputting no other information other than my own name to be searched on. The link provided is a front and sales pitch to 4 underlying paid search “services”. It is outrageously expensive. Only the most desperate person would want to go through this. I am not quick to believe hype without checking things out for myself.
I warn you, this 9-minute video is an absolute time-waster. However, if you really want to see the underhanded sales tactics used, then get educated and pay attention to the text and all the “download and processing” animation. No reliable online search service takes the amount of turtle time shown in the video. The “climax” of the video is a paid screen inviting you to a minimum of $23. I was not willing to pay to go any further.
I’m of the opinion (speaking for myself and my own case) that many restraining orders are more annoying than they are “lethal”. Too many people think that other people actually care about it to the degree they do. Unless someone is a nutcase, violent, obsessive, some extreme situation, etc. most people aren’t going to lose friends and a job over this.
Quite frankly, most people aren’t going to pay for this information this website is offering. If business was so good, they wouldn’t be using the sleazy tactics they do to reel people in.
LikeLike
Moderator
January 24, 2015
There are a lot of factors to consider. You were accused by a woman you’d never actually met of causing her apprehension or inspiring others to harass and threaten her in an online forum (i.e., not even directly). You can present a full audit of everything that’s supposed to have “terrorized” her, and you can say, It’s BS.
Others are accused by people they do know or have known, and the accusations (possibly only implied) can be a lot more damning (besides enduringly hurtful). Appreciate that completely irrespective of what the allegations are on a “domestic violence protection order,” “stalking protection order,” or “protection from abuse order,” the connotations of the titles of these judgments are by themselves “lethally” prejudicial.
Many people have reported losing one or more jobs consequent to being issued a restraining order, even, in cases, when the order was dismissed (i.e., baseless allegations that the court actually recognized as baseless still cost them jobs). In cases, the only careers they’re qualified for have been closed to them. I’ve personally corresponded at length with a bank employee and a would-have-been stockbroker (who can’t even be sponsored to take the qualifying exam he needs to be a commodities trader because of the impediment of an order based on some letters he wrote to a woman he was concerned about). I’ve heard, as well, from some others who didn’t specify what their professions were. Too, I’ve heard from people who were at risk of losing positions, including one man who didn’t dare to so much as identify what part of the country he was in for fear of losing a security clearance. A few days ago, I heard from a nurse who’s always going to be waiting for the other shoe to drop (“Will it be today?”). I’ve also read accounts from people who were fired from jobs and can’t return to them. One job that comes to mind is police officer (and the person I’m thinking of is a woman who was accused by her sister). People are also barred from performing volunteer work—on no other basis than a “record” in a database.
I do know what you mean. I’ve also, for example, talked with a teacher who was headed to Tennessee to become a musician. Obviously a restraining order can’t legally prevent him from composing or selling songs, and you might be right that no one would care. But the psychological fallout of the experience might have been creatively “lethal” to him (“I felt like a sex offender,” he told me), and if he had to try to return to teaching, the record would be visible to his employers and might mean he was denied. People do end up destitute.
I heard from a California woman this week who was concerned about the possible ramifications of an order that was petitioned and not even approved in the first place, and those concerns may be valid, because at least one California attorney I read on the Internet opined that trace records would linger and advised defendants to keep a copy of the dismissal on them to present to an employer if need be. This is a ridiculous necessity, and it’s an onerous one. It causes people to live in dread. Even if you can defend yourself against some false or idle accusations, who wants to start a relationship off on that footing? (“I’m not really a monster, honest.”)
People accused of domestic violence are literally (and indefinitely) prohibited from working with or around children. Period (at least in some states). It doesn’t even matter if the allegations were of “emotional abuse” to an adult only (“the record” is all that matters). They’re barred from even attending their children’s school functions. Ever. The implication, of course—and it’s one they feel keenly—is that they’re child molesters. I’ve corresponded with a woman who was surviving day-to-day (because she was denied employment) and trying to appeal a domestic violence protection order petitioned against her by her former boyfriend in another state. She’d never even been granted a practicable chance to speak in her defense.
So you see that perceptions are affected by these orders, which never go away; it’s not just in the minds of the accused—though that’s more than “bad enough.” One man wrote recently to say he’s living “like a hamster.” This man says he’s an M.D. and has a J.D. (law degree), and can’t practice either profession. He was, to compound the horror, accused by his brother! Falsely, he reports. Thanks to compound allegations (that all began with a restraining order), he’s now “a criminal.”
And get this: Even if orders are dismissed on appeal, there’s only one state in the nation whose laws explicitly entitle a defendant to have public records associated with the temporary order expunged on request. That state is Tennessee, incidentally, and I was euphoric to be able to tell someone I know about this. Here’s what she wrote back yesterday:
I don’t consider myself a nutcase or violent (though I’m a lot less stable than I was before all of this began), but I was represented as a stalker and (potential) assailant nine years ago, and I’ve looked at third-party correspondence to my accuser that indicates I’ve been represented as a violent nutcase-stalker ever since (now almost a decade). I’ve never seen my accuser’s home, but she’s reportedly implied to people that I lurked around outside it, and she would have gladly let them draw the conclusion that I was someone who would have stolen her panties as a trophy if the chance arose. (In fact I don’t know that that claim hasn’t been made to somebody, somewhere.) This person was outside of my house at night (as late as the early a.m.), routinely and eagerly introduced her underwear into conversation with me (as well as various of her “anatomical allures”), and took advantage of excuses to touch or grasp me. To show you how easily perceptions can be twisted, this woman (it was reported to me in 2012) talked about me at work in tones of infatuation, and this woman was married (though the friend I talked to said she called the woman’s spouse “the phantom husband,” because no one had ever seen the guy). A few hysterical protestations was all it took to eclipse the obvious. Six judges have so far ruled on some aspect of the case, none of them was any less susceptible to the force of those hysterical representations, and their interpretations are the recorded “truth.”
LikeLike
Matthew S. Chan
January 24, 2015
I am not sure but I think you might have personalized some generalized comments of my impressions of ROA. I have qualified in my commentaries about ROA, that my comments do not necessarily extend to those situations where people were in domestic types of situations but I also realize that domestic clashes can intersect with First Amendment violations.
I agree there are circumstances where some who are more vulnerable than others to “what others think” such as when someone has a job and subsequently let go. I can see where there are many circumstances where bad things can certainly happen to someone. What I am getting at are the portions that people CAN control which is self-image and self-perception. When bullshit happens to us, we have to choose how we want to think, behave, and react. There are been too many cases where people are incarcerated for decades for crimes they did not commit. Some have succeeded by maintaining their innocence thereby inspiring others to assist them. Some have died in jail without getting any assistance. They became the ultimate victim of the system..I think we can all agree that is far worse than any restraining order abuse.
I am not saying that restraining order abuse does not have severe consequences in some situations. I made a generalized statement. But even in the most extreme situations, I am not an advocate of suffering silently. I think this ROA website has done an excellent job outlining the consequences of ROA abuses. My points are simply that mindset, strategy, and action have to be aggressively brought to bear in cases where someone has been victimized.
LikeLike
Todd Greene
January 24, 2015
Sure, I get that. The horror of these things, though, doesn’t even depend on false allegations of domestic violence. Typically accusations are made by people you know, which influences other people you know, and some of these people you’re not going to waylay in a parking lot to defend yourself to.
The process is gangrenous.
I’ll use myself as an example. In 2006, my dog was one or two years old. She had one regular playmate, who was owned by a man who visited the property where I live, a man who’d known my mother since at least the early ’90s. My accuser and two or three of her academic girlfriends also hung around where I live, and one of my accuser’s girlfriends (a pungently unsanitary woman who emailed me six years later, apologized for being a party to nasty games, and then misled the court all over again the following year) this woman knew the man whose dog my dog played with. So…the owner of my dog’s friend becomes scarcer. In fact I believe the dog died years later without much intervening contact with my dog or me. I’m sure I spent no time with him at all. The man’s horse lives (last I knew) a sterile and isolated life and will die alone and crippled in a small enclosure. His life, too, was very different nine years ago.
My accuser and her girlfriends were employed at the university that had formerly employed me and that I’d intended to study at again. This is another source of pollution that you can’t dam. You can write letters to deans and department heads, yes, but these mean nothing and just seem to reinforce the perception created by your accuser. She’s talking to these people in person; you can’t.
My accuser, too, has since I knew her been granted tens or hundreds of thousands in federal grants, developed ins with various quasi-governmental figures, and (when last I knew) worked in government. So the toxic cloud spreads.
Again, sure, you can write letters and make calls, which I did, but they don’t do any good. And so it doesn’t even necessarily matter how easily court records can be got at, because their influence spreads anyway.
Some men report that when domestic violence is alleged, members of their own families believe there “must be something to it” (even when they’ve never met the accuser).
The effects of hype and hysteria are bad; the effects of lies are necrotic.
LikeLike
Matthew S. Chan
January 24, 2015
I was an adjunct faculty member in 1995 for a community college and while I had no regrets working for that one year over a span of 3 semesters, It was all I could take. I also spent time earning technical certifications and traveling in those circles. I also worked for traditional employers for several years in the corporate world until I broke away at 29. What they all have in common is that there is this “body” that hold your livelihood and professional identity in their hands. I actively avoid being immersed in any large organizational bodies for the reasons you describe. They have too much control and influence over your life.
I understand tragic, unintended consequences. It is interesting to read the stories here. There are no perfect solutions, there is only reality and how we will respond. Out of the ashes of destruction, it requires an effort to find new opportunities in life. Honestly, although things will likely turn out well for me (even if I lose the appeal), it was a huge time and energy suck. I learned a lot, gained new friends, new audience, new expertise & skills, etc. But I won’t lie, I think I would have been fine not going through the experience.
I just believe that we have to make lemonade out of lemons. But it takes work and energy to get to the lemonade stage. And sometimes being pull off-course is actually a good thing but I know not everyone feels the same. For me, it is a positive, optimistic mindset thing (not to be confused that I am out of touch and live in airy-fairy, la-la land.)
I believe in karma and your accuser appeared to be a cheater-in-the-making but was probably going to “get caught” and decided to file a bogus restraining order to cover her tracks. And yes, lots of women scream they are feminists except when it doesn’t work to their advantage. Suddenly, they are this helpless woman in fear of their life and they had nothing to do with it. Sure, that is believable, not.
LikeLike
Moderator
January 24, 2015
Yes, time is huge. If at any point I’d had someone say as someone has said of your case, “The trial court was in error,” things might have been very different for me. I mean, I think your philosophy is right no matter how much time elapses but more elapsed time means more erosion, distrust, apathy.
LikeLike
Matthew S. Chan
January 24, 2015
I had the benefit of having a hard-head so I didn’t really need anyone to tell me if I am being wronged. Also, I have the benefit of hanging around smart, Internet-savvy people. It really didn’t take long for people to see that the order I had was shitting on the First Amendment and Section 230 CDA. I simply had to be willing to do my part and come out with it and do something about it.
But I get your meaning, finding moral support is very helpful in the early stages after you have been shot with this. This ROA website is a wonderful resource. You may have suffered but others like me have benefited from your tough experiences. I am not rubbing it in. All I am saying is that you have done some great good in your role. You and ROA had a big part in connecting the dots for ME in getting EFF, Legal Scholars, Eugene Volokh, and Aaron H. Caplan, and lawyer Darren Summerville onboard.
We can’t change the past but there is the here and now we can change!
LikeLike
Moderator
January 24, 2015
I am glad for that. It’s funny what can come out of small, accidental or random acts. Like that law I brought to Betty’s attention: total fluke. I doubt her own lawyer had the least idea that that expungement statute existed.
There’s actually a lot more great scholarship to mine, but the number of law journal articles that are available for free is small. The bibliography to the right seems long, but it would be a lot longer if I could download pieces I can only quote freely.
LikeLike
Moderator
January 25, 2015
Sorry, Matthew, if that long reply sounded critical. It wasn’t meant that way—only to flesh out the concerns people have and the real privations they face (on top of the psychological shackles that you rightly point out are “in the head” and should be resisted).
I’m probably too habituated to playing “manager.” It’s good to have other voices contributing perspectives (not for the least of reasons because I’m depleted). I wish some attorneys would chime in. It’s telling that they rarely do. I think they’re no less—and probably a lot more—sensitive to public image and what they associate their names with.
That’s what vexes an endeavor to “out” injustices like this (as your coming guest post examines). To out the injustices, people have to out themselves: To fight against stigma requires cementing it! People are leery of identifying themselves, so they’re leery of telling their stories, so their stories aren’t heard, so change is slow, and reform seems like a pipe dream.
I mean, seriously, even if the false allegation rate specific to restraining orders were only 1%, that would mean 1% of millions of people implicated each year, which would mean at least 10,000 to 30,000 wronged defendants in 2014…and in 2013…and in 2012, etc. How few people actually do register their outrage publicly says everything about how the mind is affected by hyped or false allegations, which people do perceive as damning.
People are dominated by shame and kept silent. I think, anyway, that that’s likely why so few talk back, because I also think an indomitable confidence like yours is rare, which is definitely meant as a compliment.
You would probably say the stigma must be owned, discredited, and transcended. I agree, and I’m awed by your efforts even if, as you’ve said, a legal triumph wouldn’t necessarily be the first of its kind. What’s significant is that your efforts are visible. That makes them groundbreaking.
I should, incidentally, have your guest post up by tomorrow afternoon, and thanks for it.
LikeLike
Matthew S. Chan
January 25, 2015
You might feel “depleted” in your own case because you are too close to it. But by your actions, you still believe in your cause of ROA (as I do), hence, my participation here. But you have elected to take channel your “victim” status to let others know this phenomenon exists but more importantly, they are not alone. That is a big one. People don’t like to feel they are the “only ones” with a similar issue. The Internet changes all that and brings people of similar interest together.
In my limited experience with online communities, all it takes is for a couple of people to step up to “create” the beginnings of a team or movement. For example, I now have the beginnings of a relationship with Betty Krachey who is engaging in a public fight on her side. She has planted nuggets in my mind. Conversely, I gave her some tips to help her messaging and building “gravitas”. We both gain from the friendly dialog.
I am a student of public relations. For example, Bill Clinton’s biggest mistake wasn’t that he fooled around with Monica Lewinsky. His biggest mistake is that he didn’t just admit to it and apologize for it. He would have taken flak for cheating. It was a moral discretion, not a legal one. Nothing would have happened to him just a bruised ego. So many other Presidents and celebrities have cheated also. He wasn’t the first. His ongoing DENIAL only INCREASED the energy by his enemies to “out” him.
When someone “outs” themselves, it takes the energy away from the disclosure. I suggest people look around and read how celebrities, political figures, and other visible people handle scandals. The people who do the best are the ones who don’t try to hide, deny, etc. They admit and apologize for their part of the mistakes, tell people they learned the lessons, and move on. But obviously, don’t accept responsibility for someone else’s lies. But trying to hide the situation on empowers the enemy and the control they have.
Even if someone isn’t willing to be a figurehead in a fight, they can contribute in other ways. I have anonymous supporters who help in research, money contributions, offer their eyes & ears, moral support, connect people, etc. You are clearly connecting people. I would never have known about Betty Krachey had it not been for you.
Winning the psychological battle is sometimes slow and it can take years. I didn’t get to be the way I am simply when I turned 18. I have evolved into the person I am out of practice of facing various fears and overcoming many challenges over the years. It is a mental and psychological muscle that has been exercised and conditioned well. You learn and develop those “muscles” first through baby steps, then gradually larger issues, and you build strength and momentum through the transformational process. Next thing you know, you too can be the shameless asshole I am today! LOL!
I encourage your readers to start looking within themselves and take baby steps. It is a skill that will be valuable in ALL aspects of their lives. Other people are attracted to it which only positively reinforces those “muscles”. Today, I frequently use profanity and politically-incorrect phrasing in my own blog posts to make certain points simply because I am so comfortable with it and I know my readers enjoy it!
LikeLike
Moderator
January 24, 2015
The video is too small to make out details from. What did you learn?
LikeLike
Matthew S. Chan
January 24, 2015
There is a full-screen button to the right of the HD on the video to magnify the video. But if it cannot be seen from in the video, these were my takeaways.
1. It is expensive to get this “public information”. Very few people will pay for it.
2. Relatively few people are going to sit to that 9-minute sales presentation.
3. The information provided may not be accurate.
4. I have used similar services in the past that had poor information and didn’t have anything more than you could find through your own Google/Bing searches.
Also, I am not sure that “public information” is always so public. There are many courts around the country that allow anyone to come in and look and photocopy that information. But that presumes a person is smart and determined enough to navigate the court clerk’s office.
For example, “anyone” can come to the city I live in and look at my traffic tickets and evictions I have filed on others. They are “public information”. And yet, the files may or may not be computerized. And most except real estate records are not online. And even people living in my city willing to go to the clerk of court’s office would be hard-pressed to see any information because most are not scanned in.
Even in larger jurisdictions where they provide court records online, I searched for information on court cases (not restraining orders), it cannot be found. As determined as I might be, I won’t necessarily fly or drive to another city and physically retrieve the information.
Given my limited experiences with both paid and free “public information” services, I am not overly concerned about anyone finding anything on me that I won’t easily admit to and publicly discuss. Even if I had something very embarrassing, I would be concerned but it would be mitigated by the fact that “public information” is frequently not that “public.”
LikeLike
Moderator
January 24, 2015
What disturbs me is that these services must, at some point, have pulled the records they have out of government databases. How? I understand there have (for decades) been information brokers who gather names, addresses, and phone numbers. Magazines advertised “mailing lists” for sale when I was a little kid. But how do these sites acquire public (government) records in “bulk”? No way is there someone combing individual courthouse records.
LikeLike
Matthew S. Chan
January 24, 2015
I don’t know how they get their information but I do know they are often incomplete or out of date. I’ve actually pulled a few reports over the years. Most of the information they have is crap and you could have gotten it yourself through various free resources. The fact that much of the information is either crap (due to incompleteness) is both a good and bad thing. The good thing means if anyone wants to pull juicy information on you, they will likely be disappointed. So, I don’t buy these crappy reports anymore. To me, they are largely a ripoff.
The majority of clerk offices in smaller cities or towns don’t have the budget to make everything they have online. It costs time, money, and labor. They only make what is really necessary and commonly used available. Real estate records is a big one. But traffic tickets, small claims cases, and other lower-level court cases (which include restraining orders) don’t seem to show up. I knew my own case and my city is the 2nd largest city in Georgia and 110th in the U.S. and I could get very little information on my own case. And the clerks office charges $1 per damned page. It is “public” information but it ain’t easy to get even when you are right there in the office! (I have been to several clerk of court offices because I have investigated many jurisdictions over the years. I have also searched many states information.) In my limited view and anecdotal experience, “public information” remains largely hard-to-get for all but the most popular resources.
LikeLike
Moderator
January 24, 2015
I was really just using that website to show how all of this is sensationalized. A lot of people don’t know that restraining orders aren’t “confidential” and are public records, including the people who petition them.
“Restraining Orders Are Public Records” says what’s most important.
LikeLike