Can an Accidental Phone Call Violate a Protection Order?
In criminal cases involving protection orders, a common defense is that the contact was accidental, such as a brief phone call that was immediately hung up. But can the state still prove that this kind of accidental contact meets the legal standard for recklessness? Ohio courts have addressed this issue, and the answer may surprise you.
What Is Recklessness in Ohio Law?
Under Ohio law, recklessness is defined as acting with a “heedless indifference to the consequences” and disregarding a “known risk.” In the context of a protection order, this means that if someone knows they are under such an order and still makes contact—whether through a phone call or other means—they could be found to have acted recklessly, even if the contact was unintentional.
The Case of Multiple “Accidental” Calls
In one scenario, a defendant made several very brief phone calls—some as short as one second—to a protected person, in violation of a civil protection order. The defendant claimed the calls were accidental, but the state argued that making multiple calls over a short period indicated recklessness rather than mere negligence. Ohio courts have held that while a single accidental call may not meet the recklessness standard, a pattern of repeated calls can suggest otherwise.
For example, in State v. Bellomy, a defendant who made a brief call in violation of a stalking protection order argued that the call was accidental. Despite his claim, the court found that because the defendant had a history of violating the order and was aware of its terms, his actions met the standard for recklessness. The court upheld his conviction, reasoning that the defendant’s prior behavior demonstrated a disregard for the risks associated with making such calls.
Failure to Leave Can Be Reckless Too
Another important case, State v. Shockey, involved a defendant who attended a funeral where the protected person was present. The protection order required the defendant to leave immediately if he accidentally encountered the victim. However, the defendant stayed at the funeral for over an hour after being asked to leave. The court found that this failure to comply with the terms of the order constituted reckless behavior.
What This Means for Defendants
If you’re facing charges for violating a protection order, even accidental or brief contact can be problematic if the state can show a pattern of reckless behavior. Courts may interpret multiple calls or other forms of contact, even if they appear accidental, as a disregard for the protection order’s terms. Additionally, if the protected person can demonstrate a history of similar behavior, this can further support a finding of recklessness.
Conclusion
While a single brief phone call might be interpreted as an accident, repeated contact—especially over a short period—could meet the legal standard for recklessness. Anyone facing charges for violating a protection order should be aware of this distinction and seek legal counsel to understand their options.