Typically, judges do not debate the plain and ordinary meaning of English words. However, occasionally, courts struggle to define certain terms that may seem straightforward. This is exactly what happened in the case of Wyant v. Commonwealth of Virginia, when the Virginia Court of Appeals grappled with the meaning of the word “contact.”
The Wyant Case: Defining “Contact”
In the Wyant case, Mr. Wyant had a protective order against him that prohibited him from having “contact of any kind with the petitioner.” Ten days after the protective order was entered (and still in effect), Wyant parked in front of the Petitioner’s neighbor’s house, walked up to the property line, and began taking photographs in the general direction of the Petitioner’s house. Wyant stated that he had no idea whether the Petitioner was home and was simply taking pictures of cars for a future court hearing. The Petitioner, however, claimed that Wyant knew she was home and stood about fifty feet away from her while snapping pictures. Importantly, the Petitioner admitted that Wyant had no verbal or physical contact with her.
One would think that Wyant did not violate the prohibition on contact with the Petitioner. But the Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed. Citing precedent set forth in Elliott vs. The Commonwealth of Virginia (2009), the Court found that Wyant intentionally positioned himself in such a way as to “pierce the protective barrier” between himself and the Petitioner in an effort to visually communicate with her.
A Broader Definition of “Contact”?
Based on this case, it seems that Virginia courts apply a broader definition of the term “contact” beyond physical touching and oral communication. But do they really?
The Elliott Case
In the Elliott case, which the Court relied on in the Wyant decision, there was a nearly identical protective order against Mr. Elliott that prevented any contact with the Petitioner, as well as her family members. After an unrelated court matter, Elliott verbally threatened the Petitioner’s mother, claiming he would beat the family back to their house. He did. Elliott positioned his truck about a block away from the Petitioner’s home, got out, and made gestures toward the Petitioner with a clear line of sight.
So, Elliott clearly violated the no-contact order, right?
Court Rulings: Wyant vs. Elliott
Wrong! The Virginia Supreme Court found that protective orders are designed to protect the physical safety and well-being of a petitioner, and thus, the term “contact” should be limited to conduct that “pierces that protective barrier” (this is where the Wyant Court got the language). Since Elliott was a block away, the Court concluded that he posed no threat to the Petitioner’s safety, and therefore, did not violate the protective order.
In contrast, Wyant, who had no verbal or physical contact with the Petitioner, was found guilty of violating the protective order, while Elliott, who made verbal threats and gestures, was cleared of violation.
If you’re confused by this, you’re not alone. Nonetheless, both cases remain good law.
Key Takeaway
The takeaway from these cases is that you should abandon any preconceived notions of what “contact” means in the context of protective orders. If a protective order is issued against you, it is crucial to play it safe. Conversely, if you are protected by a protective order, you can report behavior that falls short of physical touching or verbal communication if you believe it violates the order.
Legal Help for Protective Orders
If you feel that your health or well-being is being threatened and you need a protective order, or if you have any other family law issues, you should contact a knowledgeable family law attorney right away. The experienced family law attorneys at the DiPietro Family Law Group have decades of experience handling all types of family law matters and are here to help you. Contact one of the DiPietro family law attorneys today to schedule a consultation at (888) 530-4374.