Stalking bill on hold as focus turns to budget Proposed legislation awaits hearing from Senate committee BY REBECCA MORTON Staff Writer Every day is a time of waiting for one Marlboro woman. She continues to endure the harassment dealt to her by aman who has stalked her on and off for 10 years. At the same time, she waits with sinking hopes for the state Senate to hear legislation that would help protect her and others whose lives are interrupted by a stalker. InAugust 2007, GreaterMediaNewspapers introduced readers to the Marlboro woman who has endured a series of twisted events that she believes have all come at the hand of a stalker. The newspaper is withholding the woman's name to protect her privacy. The most recent events to interrupt her life came just a few weeks ago when she was on vacation. Five hours after her flight touched down in another region of the United States, she began to receive randomphones calls on her cell phone fromfour faxmachines in various areas codes in New Jersey. The legislation on which the woman is resting her hopes received unanimous approval in the state Assembly on March 13 with a 78-0 vote (twomembers did not vote), but the legislation will remain a bill until it is heard in the Senate.Due to the state's current budget proceedings, the stalking bill may not have its hearing untilMay. Last week a woman from Jersey City contacted GreaterMedia Newspapers. "The bill will help me in the sense that when [I am} in court, it will be recognized under the eyes of the lawaswhat it is, stalking, not harassment. The fact that he never told me he wants to kill me won't matter," she said. The woman said her stalker is a former co-worker who had been harassing her at work. Losing his job did not deter the stalker, according to the woman. She is taking her stalker to court next month, but said she believes that all shewill be granted without the new law in place is a restraining order. "I'mexpecting atmost a no-contact order to be granted, butwhen you are dealingwith a stalker you are dealing with a nonrational person, so the no-contact order is a false sense of security," the woman said. TheNationalCenter forVictims ofCrime reports that 28 percent of female victims and 10 percent of male victims obtained a protective order and of that number, 69 percent of females and 81 percent of males had that order violated. Previously introduced in June 2007 by former Assemblyman Michael Panter, the bill that would toughen penalties for people convicted of stalking received unanimous approval in theAssembly during its lame-duck session following the November 2007 election. Due to its lack of hearing in the Senate, the bill ultimately died and had to be reintroduced. Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein (DMercer andMiddlesex), acting as a primary sponsor, quickly hadA-1563 reintroduced on Jan. 8, one day after the previous legislative session ended. With 23 supporters in addition to Greenstein, including Assemblyman Eric Munoz (R-Essex,Morris, Somerset, Union) andAssemblyman Joseph Cryan (D-Union) as primary sponsors, the bill was placed in committee but was soon released. The Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee unanimously voted in favor of the bill on Feb. 25. The Senate's identical legislation (S-1106) is currently awaiting a hearing in the Senate's Judiciary Committee after being introduced on Feb. 14. Primary sponsors for the Senate bill are Sen. Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex) and Sen. JenniferBeck (R-Monmouth andMercer). In order for S-1106 to have its committee hearing, the committee chairman, Sen. John Adler (D-Camden), would have to place it on the agenda, according to Jason Butkowski, a spokesman for the Senate Democratic Office. The sponsors of the billmay askAdler to place it on the agenda. Jim Manion, a spokesman for Senate Democrats, said the next Judiciary Committee meeting would be in May, since no more hearings would be heard until after the budget break. Manion said there is a possibility of the legislation being posted for a hearing right away when the panel reconvenes. The Senate last met on March 17 and now begins a period where the focus will be "all budget, all the time," according to Butkowski. At present, stalking is a fourth-degree crime, which carries a maximum penalty of 18 months in prison. A person would be found guilty of stalking if he or she purposely or knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury or death to himself or a member of his immediate family. The new amendments give the current law "more teeth," covering new technologies that had not previously been included, according to Manalapan Police Chief Stuart Brown, who helped draft the changes. Also under the proposed legislation, an individual could be found guilty of stalking if he or she made repetitive contact to a third party about the victim- for example, if the stalker contacted the victim's employer. The crime would also be upgraded to a third-degree crime, which carries penalties of imprisonment up to five years, a fine of up to $15,000, or both. No longer would the victim have to fear just bodily injury or death. Under the new legislation, the victim would have to feel emotional distress. Emotional distress in the bill is defined as "significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling." Expressing her frustration, theMarlboro woman said that if the bill is not passed in March and signed into law inApril, she will make plans to move out of New Jersey as soon as her son completes school. The woman worries that by the time the budget is finished, the Legislature will be ready for its summer recess, leaving the bill hanging until November.