Lobbyist denied appeal in case where he stalked a WA House Representative

A Washington state Court of Appeals judge denied an appeal on Monday brought forward by a prominent state lobbyist who stalked a Washington state lawmaker, according to court documents.

Cody Arledge, a registered lobbyist for The Arledge Group, argued in court filings that a trial court abused its discretion when it issued him a Domestic Violence Protection Order for stalking his ex-girlfriend, Rep. Lauren Davis, D-Shoreline. Arledge argued too that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by ordering him to be monitored by an electronic GPS.

Davis ended the relationship with Arledge in 2021 and the protection order was issued in 2022.

Davis told McClatchy in an email Monday that she felt “a deep sense of relief after an arduous, nearly two-year legal battle.”

“More than anything, I am incredibly heartened by what this decision means for other survivors,” Davis said. “Many domestic violence cases are never criminally charged and only appear in civil court. Civil protection orders are often effective, but prove inadequate in highly lethal cases. One in 4 women murdered by their intimate partners had one. The act of seeking a protection order is so frequently a precursor to domestic homicide that it has a name — ‘retaliation violence.’”

Davis said she hopes that the decision Monday paves the way for a broader use of GPS monitoring in civil protection order cases.

“This common-sense technology is life saving for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking,” Davis added. “DV homicide has been eliminated in jurisdictions where it is widely utilized. This technology has given me my life back and I am eternally grateful.”

The Court of Appeals disagreed with Arledge’s claim that the Superior Court “abused its discretion by relying on protected speech and conduct to find the statutory elements of stalking.”

“Arledge made several communications sufficient to establish a course of conduct,” wrote Judge Bill Bowman in the filing.

Arledge sent over a dozen emails to Davis after she told him to stop contacting her, and he would use other emails as well as a disguised number when attempting to get her attention.

“These communications are prima facie evidence of a course of conduct intended to harass or intimidate Davis,” Bowman wrote. “And substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Davis’ fear was reasonable.”

“Davis claimed she was afraid because Arledge met ‘every high-risk marker for intimate partner homicide, including: suicidality, depression, substance use disorder, access to firearms, coercive control, stalking, and escalating behavior,’” Bowman continued. “The court did not abuse its discretion by granting Davis’ request for a DVPO.”

The judge also disagreed with Arledge that the monitoring device was unconstitutional.

Arledge was required to be monitored for a year, although an extension could be added for violations of the DVPO.

“The electronic monitoring device passively records his location; it alerts law enforcement and Davis only if Arledge comes within 1,000 feet of her residence or workplace,” Bowman said. “So, any intrusion into Arledge’s privacy is not permanent, and the degree of the intrusion is limited because the device shares Arledge’s location only if he violates the court’s order.”

The Seattle Times reported in January that Arledge triggered his monitoring system twice in 2022 when he drove on a road adjacent to the state Capitol, where Davis works. He was arrested in July of that year and faces two counts in Thurston County District Court for violating the order.

The Times also reported that in March 2022 Davis was initially denied a full protective order by a King County court commissioner. After the denial, Arledge had contacted Tumwater police to get his guns back, leading Davis to obtain an Extreme Risk Protection Order which prevented that from occurring. In May that year, a King County Superior Judge appealed the commissioner’s ruling that denied Davis a protective order.

While the judge reaffirmed the DVPO, he granted Davis’ request for attorney fees for responding to the appeal on Monday.

“We were obviously disappointed with the Court’s ruling,” said David L. Donnan, Arledge’s attorney, in an email to McClatchy. “At this time, we are still reviewing the Court’s opinion and analysis to determine what further action, if any, may be appropriate.”