This story sounds like a bad Lifetime movie – a suspense/drama thriller that goes beyond the norm of what “normal” people will do. I can’t imagine how this poor woman has lived out such a real nightmare for so many years.

A Seattle-area man was given a 26 1/2-year prison term for waging a 17-year campaign of harassment against a former classmate he met in middle school. Prosecutors are calling this the longest sentence for stalking in memory.

Shawn Moul, 31, passively accepted the sentence last week which came about six months after being convicted on two felony counts of stalking and 19 counts of violating anti-harassment orders.

Moul began stalking classmate Tracy Lundeen in 1994, shortly after Lundeen saw him at the school library struggling with his homework and offered to help him. Lundeen said Moul began following her and wrote her more than 100 letters, alternately threatening her and vowing to kill himself. He also contacted Lundeen’s family members, demanding that she contact him.

Moul has already served prison time for repeatedly violating a no-contact order, having been sentenced to eight years in prison in 2001. Apparently, eight years wasn’t enough to teach him a lesson because after his release, he again initiated contact through Lundeen’s sister.

In court, Lundeen spoke of the long nightmare Moul has made her and her family endure. “We never asked for this,” Lundeen said. “We have, from the beginning, asked for one thing, and that’s to be left alone.”

She also addressed her stalker directly in court, saying: “Mr. Moul , please listen to me. I don’t love you. I don’t like you. I don’t intend to ever be with you. Please quit trying to contact me or my other family members.”

Lundeen added she believes that until Mr. Moul is dead, “nothing changes,” the Seattle Times reported.

Moul also spoke at his sentencing and did not oppose the lengthy prison term. “I don’t mind being in custody for the rest of my life,” he said.

Maybe now Tracy and her family can find some peace. Mr. Moul could use some psychiatric help.

The prosecutor’s office has taken steps to ensure Moul is unable to send Lundeen letters from prison.                                               

I know of a woman who was stalked for one year. It was difficult to collect evidence. For example, she would see his car parked in the front of her house, but when she ran out to take a picture or video, he would drive away.

If you need help building a case, you can contact MSI Detective Services. You should also try to take as many protective measures as possible such as carrying pepper spray and a personal alarm. Some states will allow you to purchase a stun gun. Our U-Spy website, under “Personal Defense/Stun Guns,” has a list of states where we cannot ship stun guns and a link for laws in your area.

Always let someone know where you are going. Stalking is being taken much more seriously than it has in the past. Do not be embarrassed to ask people for help. 
Read story@ msnbc

Other Source: mynorthwest.com

According to a report made by a local news station in Denver, CO, a teacher was fatally shot and killed by her ex-boyfriend outside her Denver apartment on December 16. A GPS tracking device that would have been able to warn the victim that the suspect was nearby was not requested by the Denver District Attorney’s Office.

If the suspect, Ryan Miller, had still been wearing the GPS tracker, it would have alerted Andrea Roan that he was just outside her apartment; however, it was removed after a previous domestic violence case involving Miller and Roan was taken over by the Denver District Attorney. Upon taking on the case, the District Attorney decided they did not need to track the suspected killer.

Without being privy to the details of this case, I would still have to surmise that this man was considered a dangerous character for the court to have required him to wear a GPS tracker. I wonder what changed, if anything, that led to the decision of the District Attorney to have the GPS tracker removed. This is a tragic death that could have been avoided.

“We don’t ask for it [GPS tracking devices] in every case, just those cases where we think it would be appropriate and necessary,” says Vince DeCroce. Although he was unable to talk about any specific cases, he did explain that authorities often request GPS tracking devices when they believe the victim’s life could be in danger.

Apparently, Andrea Roan’s life was in danger because she lost her life as a result of this decision.

“First and foremost is victim safety,” DeCroce says. “The tracking device sends an alert to the monitoring company if the suspect gets near the victim’s home or workplace. The company then immediately warns the victim.”

It doesn’t sound like “victim safety” was a priority here.

According to law enforcement authorities, Miller waited outside Roan’s apartment last Friday morning and then shot her in the head as she drove away.

GPS Device Could Have Prevented Tragic Murder

Miller’s case files had been handed over to the Denver District Attorney’s Office, and they did not ask for a GPS tracker.

“It appears in this particular case, we did not ask for a GPS to be a condition of Mr. Miller’s bond,” says Denver DA spokeswoman Lynn Kimbrough. “In looking at the file folder, some of the things that the prosecutor would have looked for that would have triggered a request for GPS (tracking), he simply didn’t see them in the case file at that time.”

The DA apparently was unaware the City Attorney’s Office had requested one for Miller. “This is a tragedy that has been felt by everyone in our office,” Kimbrough says.

Court documents also reveal that Denver Police arrested 27-year-old Richard Leavitt as an alleged accessory after-the-fact.

According to the arrest warrant, Miller asked Leavitt to drive him to Roan’s apartment that Friday morning. Leavitt told law enforcement officials that he heard a gunshot while waiting in the car and then saw Miller running back to the car.

He told police they went back to Miller’s apartment and Miller asked him to carry out a backpack. When police stopped Leavitt as he was leaving the apartment, they say they found a gun and ammunition in the backpack.

Read entire story@ landairsea

The Preliminary Investigation
After the law enforcement officer or investigator determines this is indeed a cyberstalking case, he or she should initiate a preliminary criminal investigation. It is important to obtain from the complainant a detailed description of the harassing behavior, including any personal contacts, such as telephone calls or being followed.

Step 1: Ask the complainant if he or she knows who is sending the harassing messages. If so, obtain the standard investigative information about the suspect: name, age, address, telephone number, vehicle information, and relationship to victim. Obtain a copy of the messages for the case file showing the e-mail address, Web site URL, nickname, screen name, and the content(s) of the message(s).

Step 2: Ask the complainant if he or she knows why he or she is being harassed. If so, record the complainant’s explanation in as much detail as possible in the narrative portion of the report. Knowledge of the reason can help lead to the identification of an unknown harasser.

Step 3: Establish when and how the harassment began. Has the contact been solely via the Internet (e-mail messages, chat rooms, mailing lists, instant messages, Web site) or has there been other harassment such as telephone calls, cell phone calls or texts, postal letters, or contacts at the complainant’s workplace or other locations, and whether any of the complainant’s relatives or friends have also been subjected to the harassment.

Step 4: Determine whether the complainant has been threatened with physical harm or physically attacked. Often, the electronic messages will threaten violence, rape, and even death. The law enforcement officer will need to establish the details of how these threats were communicated. If the complainant has been attacked, it is apparent the threat has escalated beyond electronic threats. Details of the attack and results of the subsequent investigation of that incident become part of the case file.

Step 5: The law enforcement officer or investigator needs to secure any physical evidence available and start the chain of custody to protect the evidence. The material should be saved in both paper printouts and electronic files on an electronic medium such as a disk or CD/DVD-ROM. Ask the complainant if he or she has any material evidence. Items to request include:

• E-mail messages
• Chat room messages
• Instant messages
• Web page images
• Social networking messages/wall posts
• Mailing list messages
• Message board messages
• Telephone/cell phone conversations or answering machine messages
• Text messages
• Postal letters
• Photographs

MSI Detective Services is experienced and equipped to handle this type of investigation. Visit our list of services if you need help.

To find the guide and similar information, go to:dfinews

Electronic snooping, however, is a whole different playing field that’s regulated by both State and Federal Law. The easiest ways to find out usually aren’t legal. What type of activities could land a snooping partner in jail? Using a password to illegally snoop through personal email files. In most states, email is considered private conversation, subject to “reasonable expectations” that what’s written between parties on email is protected, even in the case of a husband and wife.

The Orlando Sentinel reported that a spurned Michigan spouse is learning the hard way. The husband is a computer professional, and when signs arose that his wife was cheating, he accessed her email to find evidence. Unfortunately for him, he now faces felony charges that could land him in prison for up to 5 years. Likewise, accessing any private computer account–life Facebook–is illegal.

What’s not okay? Places where we expect privacy: bedrooms, bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, hotel rooms, certain office spaces, doctor’s offices, dental offices, etc. It’s illegal to record in these places while outside of them as well: think of the Erin Andrews stalking case; so, it is not legal to record through peepholes, windows, etc.

Some surveillance laws are vague; for instance, tracking devices (GPS) for private citizens. The courts have ruled both ways on this matter although law enforcement officials must obtain permission to track suspects.

It’s not legal to violate a spouses computer, but it is legal for parents to monitor a child’s online activity. Employers can also check employee’s computer interactions.

What about cell phone eavesdropping? Using cell phone eavesdropping software can be, according to FederalCriminalLawyer.us,  a Federal felony.  ”Under Title 18, Section 2511 of the United States Code, it is a felony to record a conversation unless at least one party to the conversation consents. The crime is called eavesdropping, and a person found guilty can be sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined $250,000.”

A private investigator is your best bet.