This comment begins with a description of the procedure by which an applicant files a protection order and explains the royalty protection measures recorded at each stage of the trial. The extension in the criminal context contrasts with the civil context in the next section. This commentary then addresses the case law on the elimination of civil registries under the AEA. Finally, an analysis of the CASE case law shows that it is unlikely that a protection order without consent can be removed from a defendant`s civil registry. This order is enforced by the police or sheriff, who is responsible for the applicant`s residence or any place where there is a violation of that order or where the defendant may be. If the defendant violates the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 of this decision, the defendant is arrested on the charge of indirect criminal contempt. An arrest for violation of this order may take place without an arrest warrant, for the sole probable cause, whether or not the injury is committed in the presence of a police officer or sheriff. Paragraph 2 of the final order was amended to allow the courts to include additional conditions for the defendant`s restoration of personality in a section of the final order allowing for an arrest warrant in the event of a breach of conditions. Paragraph 9 of the final decision was amended to require a complaint of assistance to be filed within two days instead of a fortnight after a final order was filed under the Abuse Protection Act, in order to avoid the automatic extinction of the temporary assistance provisions contained in the order. This amendment is in accordance with the legal provisions of 23 Pa.C.S.A. No. 6108 (a) (5).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has considered whether a PT record could be erased in 2002. In the case of Carlacci v. Mazaleski, the applicant`s pfa filing was reviewed by the court and a “temporary” EPA order was issued against the defendant. Following the adoption of the interim EEA order, but before the last hearing, the applicants and defendants reached an agreement to overturn the interim EEA decision. The Supreme Court has upheld what has already been said previously that a PFA defendant has the right to petition the AFP against them in order to protect their reputation. In Carlacci, the Supreme Court added that in rejecting an AFP application, as in P.E.S. or PFA, the Court did not need to go any further in deciding whether a defendant had the right to downgrade the protocol. Following an arrest and without the need for an arrest warrant, the police officer or sheriff confiscates all firearms, other weapons and ammunition in the defendant`s possession that were used or threatened in the violation of the protection order or in previous abuses and other firearms in the defendant`s possession.