1 of 15 DOCUMENTS ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS ...

ALM GL ch. 209A, § 1
Page 8
be used against her (defendant drove to front of victim's home, got out of car and yelled obscene language to and made
obscene gesture at victim and soon thereafter told victim over telephone that he would kill her)]. Commonwealth v.
Robicheau (1995) 421 Mass 176, 654 NE2d 1196, 1995 Mass LEXIS 359.
Hearsay statements attributed to defendant's son by complainant warranted finding that complainant was in fear of
imminent serious physical harm from defendant (defendant told son he should use toy sword to slit his mother's throat).
Flynn v. Warner (1995) 421 Mass 1002, 654 NE2d 926, 1995 Mass LEXIS 358.
Testimony before District Court was not sufficient to warrant extension of ALM GL c 209A order entered ex parte
10 days earlier, where complainant's testimony that she suffered emotionally and experienced aggravation of ulcer
condition as result of receiving defendant's notices of lawsuit and court proceedings did not constitute threat of serious
physical harm or "abuse;" petition for relief under ALM GL c 211, § 3 should have been allowed. Larkin v. Ayer Div. of
the Dist. Court Dep't (1997) 425 Mass 1020, 681 NE2d 817, 1997 Mass LEXIS 174.
Where the third party and ex-girlfriend found a hidden video camera in the ex-girlfriend's bedroom in a clock
installed by the ex-boyfriend and the ex-boyfriend left an answering machine message with the ex-girlfriend denying
the installation of the camera and stating that had the ex-boyfriend installed the camera the ex-girlfriend would not have
found it, the trial court erred in issuing a protective order against the ex-boyfriend and any record of the order was to be
destroyed pursuant to ALM GL c 209A, § 7; although the ex-boyfriend allegedly had a temper, joked that the
ex-boyfriend could have someone taken care of, and had guns, there was nothing in the record that showed a history of
violence, threats, or hostility between the parties that would have objectively placed the ex-girlfriend in fear of
imminent serious physical harm pursuant to ALM GL c 209A, § 1. Keene v. Gangi (2004) 60 Mass App 667, 805 NE2d
77, 2004 Mass App LEXIS 299.
Plaintiff established her and her 14-year-old son's reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm from
defendant with evidence that defendant spent eight years in prison for raping two of the parties' other children,
physically and sexually assaulted plaintiff, engaged in ominously controlling and wrathful behavior towards his family
while in prison, and after his release planned to live in the same general area as plaintiff and the son. Vittone v.
Clairmont (2005) 64 Mass App 479, 834 NE2d 258, 2005 Mass App LEXIS 852, review denied Vittone v. Clairmont
(2005) 445 Mass 1106, 836 NE2d 1096, 2005 Mass LEXIS 633.
Trial court did not err in issuing an ex parte abuse prevention order pursuant to ALM GL c 209A, § 3 against the
fiance and son, as both of them, who resided with plaintiff, were household members under ALM GL c 209A, § 1, the
fiance and plaintiff were in a substantive dating relationship, and plaintiff's affidavits established a sufficient factual
basis for the conclusion that the fiance and son had caused plaintiff physical harm or placed plaintiff in fear of imminent
serious physical harm. Corrado v. Hedrick (2006) 65 Mass App 477, 841 NE2d 723, 2006 Mass App LEXIS 80.
Permanent protective order was improperly entered under ALM GL c 209A as a boyfriend's improper behavior was
directly tied to his refusal in the immediate aftermath of a breakup to accept that his lengthy romantic relationship was
over and that the girlfriend preferred to stay with her husband; nothing suggested that the boyfriend's intensity persisted
for the two-year period between the date of the original order and when the girlfriend sought the permanent order.
Smith v. Jones (2009) 75 Mass App 540, 915 NE2d 260, 2009 Mass. App. LEXIS 1280.
4. Warrantless arrest
ALM GL c 209A, permitting warrantless arrest for certain misdemeanors in context of domestic abuse (including
placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm) could not be relied on to justify warrantless arrest of
defendant for making threats, where record did not establish that defendant's threats constituted "abuse" as defined by
statute. Commonwealth v. Jacobsen (1995) 419 Mass 269, 644 NE2d 213, 1995 Mass LEXIS 1.
If police officers has reason to believe that defendant's conduct with respect to person protected under ALM GL c
209A placed person in fear of imminent serious physical harm, warrantless arrest for assault may be made.