Keeping Tabs on an Ex? Court Says Third-Party Stalking a Crime

[Athena]

WA high court: Stalking by third parties is a crime
By Rachel La Corte

The Associated Press

OLYMPIA — The state Supreme court has reinstated the conviction of man who used other people to stalk an ex-girlfriend.

In a 6-3 decision Thursday, the high court says the crime of stalking includes using other people to intimidate someone. The dissenting opinion says the jury was not given proper jury instructions. But the majority says state stalking law is clear.

The court overturned a Court of Appeals ruling that threw out the conviction against Andre Paul Becklin. Becklin was convicted by a jury in Ferry County Superior Court of using several friends to follow his ex-girlfriend, Mary Alison McGee, and report back to him.

_________________

If I had a dollar for every person I've know who has used friends to keep tabs on an ex, I could probably buy myself that Tesla Motors hybrid.

Obviously, though, Andre's friends' efforts were a little more involved than a simple, "Hey, I saw Mary at the bar the other night..."

Could this ruling open itself up to a dangerous precedence, though?

[Raq me darkly]

I have been thinking about this post. When I heard about it, I was alarmed because it was phrased to me as "Can looking up info on someone on Google be considered under this third party stalking?"

I do not think so. In this case, the court used what I find to be a key word "intimidate". If you use third parties to gather information so you can "intimidate" or otherwise cause the person to feel hunted (after all, is that not what stalking in its basest form is), then yes, you are stalking. And shame on these friends for helping.

I do not think that the simple "I saw your ex at the [event]..." counts. Otherwise I do not know of anyone who would not be guilty of "stalking". Who does not enjoying hearing unfortunate talkes of his or her ex? Otherwise, how would you be able to benefit from "living better is the best revenge." ;)

[Athena]

Agreed, Raq.

What's funny about this particular case is that I, a Washington resident, have a best friend who is dealing with a recent breakup. The breakup was abrupt and absolutely unpredictable, which has left her understandably puzzled. After all, the two had been together for roughly 4 years, and he had just presented her with a diamond ring (not engagement, though) during her birthday just a couple weeks prior to the breakup.

Now, my circle of friends is freakishly tight. The kind of tight you can only get by several generations of families growing up and staying in the same area. My friend, Jessica, is my father's best friend's daughter. Her recent ex, Bryan, was an elementary school buddy of mine. Our friends, Olivia and Philicia, are sisters, and the grandaughters of one of my grandmother's life-long friends. You get the point. Anyway, Jessica's been imploring us to get ahold of Bryan and see what's going on. She's enlisted the help of Bryan's friends under the guise of "I'm worried about him - This isn't normal". Given the circumstances (we all know Bryan, and this ISN'T normal), her behavior seems totally reasonable.

But, given the court's recent ruling, it seems that, if he wanted to, Bryan could turn around and slap Jessica with a stalking charge. I wonder, if that were to happen, if the circumstances would be mitigating enough to dismiss said charges, or at least find her not guilty.

[Raq me darkly]

Again, I pull out that single word "intimidate." I do not think your friend would be in the wrong because it sounds like she would not be using the information to do anything except to satisfy her curiosity. If she then chooses to use the information to do something to Bryan, then there may be cause for the "third party stalking".

If gathering information were deemed to be illegal, then they would need to revoke all the private investigator licenses. Hmmm, this could be interesting. How would this "third party stalking" apply to private investigators? After all, that is what they get paid to do.

[Athena]

Again, I pull out that single word "intimidate." I do not think your friend would be in the wrong because it sounds like she would not be using the information to do anything except to satisfy her curiosity. If she then chooses to use the information to do something to Bryan, then there may be cause for the "third party stalking".

Oh, absolutely. I follow you. Still, things like "threat" or "intimidation" are often considered to be matters of perception, rather than intention, legally speaking. This is what I'm curious about. Those few cases where the intimidation was perceived, even though it wasn't intended.


If gathering information were deemed to be illegal, then they would need to revoke all the private investigator licenses. Hmmm, this could be interesting. How would this "third party stalking" apply to private investigators? After all, that is what they get paid to do.

An interesting question, indeed.