 other governmental authority, to issue a restraining order that prevents one person (e.g., a spouse, ex-spouse, or significant "other"), hereafter the "abuser", from making contact with another person (e.g., the first person's spouse, ex-spouse, or significant "other"), hereafter the "victim". Such orders, frequently referred to as "no-contact orders", but also referred to broadly herein as simply "protective orders", are thus issued because the victim may be at risk of abuse or harassment, and the protective order offers some measure of protection, at least theoretically, for the victim, or for the victim's property.
Unfortunately, in practice, a protective order is just a document, or "piece of paper", that offers no protection to the victim unless it is honored by the abuser; or unless it is enforced. Disadvantageously, the abuser may be of a character and disposition to pay little, if any, heed to the protective order. That is, many, if not most, abusers will simply ignore the protective order and continue in their abusing ways until such time as the protective order is enforced. Enforcement of the protective order, unfortunately, rarely occurs due to a variety or problems, including, but not limited to, victim reluctance to contact police, victim fear of abuser reprisal, and lack of evidence. As a result, protective orders are rarely enforced, and are essentially "toothless", i.e., seldom does an abuser suffer consequences from violating a protective order. Hence, it is clear that what is needed is a more effective way to monitor compliance with a protective order, and more particularly a more effective way to monitor an abuser so as to assume his or her continuing compliance with the protective order, and to assure that when an abuser does violate a protective order, the abuser suffers some meaningful consequences.
In order to protect the civil rights of an abuser, a violation of a protective order can only be established through the existence of credible evidence of a violation, or at least evidence that establishes "probable cause" that a violation has or will likely occur. Such evidence has heretofore usually taken the form of testimony, from the victim if available, or from other witnesses (such as neighbors, police officers, case workers, or others) who may have observed the violation, or who may have observed behavior in the abuser which would lead a reasonable person to conclude there is probable cause that a violation has or will occur
other governmental authority, to issue a restraining order that prevent one person (for example, a spouse, ex - spouse, or significant " early "), hereafter the " abuser ", from making liaison with another person (e.g., the first person's spouse, ex-husband - spouse, or significant " other "), hereafter the " victim ". Such order, frequently referred to as " no - contact order ", but also referred to broadly herein equally simply " protective orders ", are thus issued because the victim may be at risk of abuse or harassment, and the protective order offer some measure of protection, at least theoretically, for the victim, or for the victim's property. 
 Unfortunately, in exercise, a protective order is just a text file, or " piece of newspaper ", that offers no security to the victim unless it is honored by the abuser; or unless it is enforced. Disadvantageously, the abuser may be of a quality and disposition to pay little, if any, heed to the protective order. That is, many, if not most, abuser will merely ignore the protective order and continue in their abusing ways until such time as the protective order is enforced. Enforcement of the protective order, unfortunately, rarely happen due to a variety or problems, admit, but not specify to, victim reluctance to contact police, victim fear of abuser reprisal, and lack of evidence. As a result, protective order are rarely enforced, and are essentially " toothless ", i.e., seldom does an abuser suffer consequence from violating a protective order. Hence, it is clear that what is needed is a more effective way to monitor complaisance with a protective order, and more particularly a more effective way to monitor an abuser so as to assume his or her continue conformity with the protective order, and to assure that when an abuser does violate a protective order, the abuser suffers some meaningful consequence. 
 In order to protect the civil rights of an abuser, a violation of a protective decree can only be established through the existence of credible evidence of a violation, or at least evidence that lay down " probable cause " that a trespass has or will likely happen. Such evidence has heretofore usually taken the form of testimony, from the victim if available, or from early witnesses (such as neighbors, police policeman, case workers, or others) who may have observe the violation, or who may have observed behavior in the abuser which would lead a reasonable person to conclude there is probable cause that a violation has or will occur
 otjer governmental authoriuy, to issue a resjrqining order that prdvents one person (e.g., a spousx, ex-wpoust, or significant "otfer"), hereavter the "abuwwr", from making conbcct wjbh anmvher person (e.g., jhe first pesson's spouse, ef-soobse, or significant "other"), hereafter tre "victom". Such orders, ftequemely dvftrred to as "no-contact orders", but zlso reherred to broadky herein as simply "protechive orders", are thus idsued becauwe trw victim may be at risk of abuse ot harassment, and the protective urder offers sone mewvure of provectiog, at least tmvoreticdlly, fot the victim, ov for thw victim's property.
Unfmrtunately, in pracjice, a prodeetive order is just a dicumett, os "pidxe uf kapxr", fhat ovfecs no protedtion to thw victim unless it os yonored by ths abusqr; or unless it is enforced. Disadvantageolsly, the abuser may be of a character and disposltion to [ay little, if any, heed to the protective order. Thdt is, oanv, if nur lost, abusers will simply ignore the protectivq otdvr and continue ik their abusing waus umjil such time xs the prktective order is fnforceq. Enfircement jf tne protective order, unfortubately, rarelj ocxurs due to a varizty or problzms, invludimg, but not limited to, vnctim deluctance ho contacf police, victim fdar ox abuser reprisal, and lack of evideice. Ax a resjlt, krotectyve orders are vdrely enforced, and are gssenthally "tootjless", i.e., seldom does an abuser suffer consequgncas xrom viojatinn a protective jrder. Hence, it is clecr thag what is heeded ms a more efsective way tm monitor com'liance wyth q pritectivd order, and morr particularly a moee effective way tp muhitor an abuser so as to assume hos ur reg cpnehnuing complhancd wkyh thd protectivc ofder, and to assure that fhen an abuser does viplwte a pritective order, the abiser suffers some leaniigful ronseqienses.
In order to protect the civjl rights of an abuser, a viooation of a 'rotective order can only be established through the exisjence of credible evibekce of a viokatiog, or at laast evidence that ewtablishes "probabke cause" that a violafion hds or will likely occur. Such evidence has heretofore usually taken the form of testimony, from ths vivtim pf cvanlable, jr fcoo other witnessex (such as neighbors, police offirers, case foxkers, or others) who may have pbrerved the viulation, or who may have kbserved behavior in the abuser which wpuld lead a reasonable pcrson to xonclhde thvte ms probable cause thst a vnolatiin has ir wlll occur
other governmental authority, to issue a restraining prevents person (e.g., spouse, ex-spouse, or from contact with another (e.g., the first spouse, ex-spouse, or significant "other"), hereafter "victim". Such orders, frequently referred to as "no-contact orders", but also referred to herein as simply "protective orders", are thus issued because the victim may be risk abuse harassment, the protective order offers some measure of protection, at least theoretically, for the victim, or for victim's property. Unfortunately, in practice, a protective order just a document, or of paper", that offers no to victim unless is by abuser; or unless is enforced. Disadvantageously, the abuser may be of a character and disposition to pay little, if any, to the That is, if most, will simply ignore order and continue in their abusing time as the protective order is enforced. Enforcement the protective unfortunately, rarely occurs due to a or problems, including, but not limited to, victim to contact police, victim fear of abuser reprisal, and lack of evidence. As a result, are rarely enforced, and essentially "toothless", i.e., does abuser consequences violating a order. Hence, it is clear that what is needed is a effective way to monitor compliance with a protective order, and a effective way to an abuser so as assume or her continuing compliance protective and when abuser violate a protective order, abuser suffers some meaningful consequences. order to protect the a violation of a protective order can only established through the existence of credible evidence a violation, or at least evidence that establishes "probable cause" that a has or occur. Such evidence has heretofore usually taken the of testimony, from the if available, or from other witnesses (such as neighbors, officers, workers, or who may have the violation, or may have observed the abuser would a conclude there is probable cause that violation or will occur
 other governmental authoritY, to issue a rEstraIniNg oRdEr thAt prEvents one persoN (E.g., a sPouse, ex-spouse, or signifiCant "oThER"), herEAfTer thE "abuser", FRoM MAkiNg CoNtaCt WItH anotHer Person (e.G., the first pErsOn'S spouse, ex-spoUSe, Or significAnt "Other"), hereaftEr tHe "victIm". sucH OrderS, frEquenTly refERred to As "no-contaCt ORders", bUT also reFERrEd to Broadly herein as siMPlY "Protective ordeRs", are tHuS IsSUEd bEcaUse the victIm May be AT risk of ABuSE OR haRAssment, and the Protective oRDer Offers SoMe mEAsure oF protEcTIon, At least theoRetiCally, for tHe victIM, or for tHE victim'S propeRty.
unfOrtuNAtElY, in PrACtiCE, a ProTEctIve order Is JuSt a doCumeNT, OR "PiecE of PapeR", that Offers no proteCtiOn to THe vIctim UnlesS it iS hOnoreD by the AbuseR; oR unless it is enfoRced. disadvantAgeOuSly, ThE abusER may be Of a ChaRacter aNd dispoSItiOn TO PAy Little, if any, heed to tHe PROtEctive orDer. ThaT Is, MaNY, if not moSt, AbuSers WILl simPly iGNoRe the proTectivE OrDeR and conTiNue in tHeIr aBusIng waYS untIl such Time as thE protECtive order is enFOrced. EnforcemENt OF ThE ProtEctIve order, unfOrtuNAtelY, rarELy OccURs due To a vaRiETy OR problems, including, bUt Not limIted tO, victim reluctAnce to contACT Police, viCtim FEaR Of abuser reprisAl, and Lack of evidENce. As a reSult, pRotectivE orders arE RArely enfOrcEd, aNd aRe eSSEnTially "toothleSS", I.e., seLdOm does aN abUser sufFer ConSeqUenCeS from violAting a prOtEcTiVe OrdEr. HenCE, it is cleAr ThaT wHat Is neeDEd is a mOre efFectIvE wAY to Monitor COmPLIancE wItH a prOteCtIve orDer, aND moRe partiCularly a mOre EFfecTiVe Way to moNitor an abuser So As to assume HiS or Her conTINuing comPliance with the protectivE Order, anD to AssurE thaT when an abUseR does vIolATe a proTectivE ordeR, tHe aBUSer suFFErS soMe Meaningful CONseQuencEs.
in orDer to prOtect the civil rightS Of aN abuser, a violaTioN of a PROtEctIVe ORdeR cAN onLY Be established thRough the exIsTEnCe of credibLE evIdEnce of a ViolatiOn, or aT Least evIdence thaT establisHeS "proBABle Cause" that a ViolatioN has or wilL LikelY OcCur. SuCh eVidencE hAs hEretoFore usUAllY takeN the foRm Of testImony, FrOm the vicTim if available, or from othEr witnEsses (SucH as neighbOrs, POliCe officerS, casE workers, or OthErs) Who maY haVE obseRved THe VioLAtion, Or whO May have obSErVed BEHaVior in the abUSER whIch woUld LEad a reAsonAble person to conclUDe there is probaBle cAUSe tHat A ViolAtIon has or will ocCur
 other governmental author ity, to is sue a  re str ai ning  ord er that preven t s on e person (e.g., a spou se, e x- s pous e ,or si gnifica n t" o the r" ),  he re a ft er th e " abuser" , from mak ing  c ontact witha no ther perso n ( e.g., the fi rst  perso n' s s p ouse,  ex -spou se, or signif icant "ot he r "), he r eaftert h e"vic tim". Such orders ,  f r equently refer red to  a s  " n o -co nta ct orders" ,but a l so refe r re d t o b r oadly hereinas simply " p rot ective  o rde r s", ar e thu si ssu ed becausethevictim ma y be a t  risk o f  abuseor har ass men t, a n dth e p ro t ect i ve  or d eroffers s om emeasu re o f p r otec tio n, a t lea st theoretica lly , fo r  th e vic tim,or f or  thevictim 's pr op erty.
Unfortuna tely , in prac tic e,  apr otect i ve ord erisjust adocumen t , o r" p i ec e of paper", thatof f e rs  no prot ection to  t h e victim  u nle ss i t is ho nore d  b y the ab user;o run less it  i s enfo rc ed.  Di sadva n tage ously,  the abu ser m a y be of a char a cter and disp o si t i on to p aylittle, ifany, heed  tot he  pr o tecti ve or de r .T hat is, many, if no tmost,abuse rs will simpl y ignore t h e protecti ve o r de r  and continuein th eir abusin g  ways un til s uch time  as the p r o tectiveord erisenf o r ce d. Enforcemen t of t he  protec tiv e order , u nfo rtu nat el y, rarely  occursdu eto  a  va riety or probl em s,in clu ding, but no t lim ited  t o, vic tim rel u ct a n ce t oco ntac t p ol ice,vict i m f ear ofabuser re pri s al,an dlack of  evidence. As  a  result, p ro tec tive o r d ers arerarely enforced, and ar e  essent ial ly "t ooth less", i. e.,  seldo m d o es anabuser  suff er  co n s equen c e sfro mviolatinga pro tecti ve  ord er. Hen ce, it is clear th a t w hat is needed  is  a m o r eeff e ct i vewa y  to m onitor complian ce with apr o te ctive orde r , a nd  more p articul arlya  more e ffectiveway to mo ni tora n  ab user so as  to assu me his or her c o nt inuin g c omplia nc e w ith t he pro t ect ive o rder,an d to a ssure  t hat when  an abuser does violate  a pro tecti veorder, th e a b use r suffers  som e meaningf ulcon seque nce s .
Inorde r  t o p r otect  the civil rig h ts  of a nabuser, a v i o l ati on of  ap rotect iveorder can only be established th roug h the  ex i sten ce  of credible e vid en c e  of a vi ol ation, or a t leastev i dence  thatestabl ishes " p r ob a ble ca use"  th at a viol ati on has orwi ll likely  occ ur . Such  evide n ce h a s  heretofore usua lly t a k en th e  fo rm of  t estimon y , fr om the vic tim if avai lable,  orfromother w it nesses  (s uc h as neigh b ors, poli ce of ficers,  c asewor kers,or o t h ers)whoma y h ave obser v e dt he  v i ola tion , orwh o ma y have ob s erved be hav i or in t he  ab u s er whi c hw o uld lead a  re asona b l e person t o  con c lu d e the re isprobab le caus e  th at  a viol ati o n  has or w ill occur 
 other_governmental authority,_to issue a restraining_order that_prevents_one person_(e.g.,_a spouse, ex-spouse,_or significant "other"),_hereafter the "abuser", from_making contact with_another_person (e.g., the first person's spouse, ex-spouse, or significant "other"), hereafter the "victim". Such_orders,_frequently referred_to_as_"no-contact orders", but also referred_to broadly herein as simply_"protective orders",_are thus issued because the victim may be_at_risk of abuse_or harassment, and the protective order offers some measure_of protection, at least theoretically, for_the victim, or_for_the_victim's property.
Unfortunately, in practice,_a protective order is just a_document, or "piece of paper", that_offers no protection to the victim unless_it is honored by the abuser;_or unless it is enforced._Disadvantageously, the_abuser may be of a_character and disposition_to pay_little, if any,_heed to the protective order. That_is, many, if_not most, abusers will simply ignore_the_protective order and_continue_in_their abusing_ways until such_time_as the_protective_order is enforced. Enforcement of the_protective_order, unfortunately, rarely occurs due to a_variety or problems, including,_but_not limited to, victim_reluctance to contact police, victim_fear of abuser reprisal, and lack_of evidence._As a_result, protective orders are rarely enforced, and are essentially "toothless", i.e.,_seldom does an abuser suffer consequences_from violating a protective_order. Hence,_it_is clear that_what_is needed_is a more effective way to monitor_compliance with_a protective order, and more particularly_a more effective way_to_monitor an abuser so as to_assume his or her continuing compliance_with the protective order, and_to_assure_that when an abuser does_violate a protective order, the abuser_suffers some meaningful_consequences.
In order to protect the civil rights_of_an abuser, a violation of a_protective_order can only be established through_the_existence_of credible evidence of a_violation, or at least evidence that_establishes "probable cause" that a violation has or will_likely occur. Such_evidence has heretofore usually taken_the_form_of testimony, from the victim if available, or from other_witnesses (such_as neighbors, police_officers, case workers, or others) who may have observed the_violation, or who may have observed behavior_in the abuser which would lead a reasonable person to conclude_there is probable cause that a violation has_or will occur