Harassment Restraining Orders: Understanding Your Options In Minnesota
A harassment restraining order (HRO) can be stressful and frustrating. This primer will help you understand the process and ease your uncertainty and anxiety. As a respondent to a petition for an HRO, you have rights. Attorney Charles Gerlach of Gerlach Law will make sure your rights are protected.
Table of Contents
Understanding The Law
Just because someone files a petition for an HRO doesn’t mean they will get one.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.748, governs the issuance and enforcement of an HRO. A petitioner must satisfy the legal requirements and follow the established process.
An HRO is a civil case. The person requesting an HRO is called ‘the Petitioner.’ A parent, guardian, or conservator may apply for an HRO on behalf of a minor. The person who is the subject of the HRO petition is called ‘the Respondent.’
Emergency Ex Parte Orders
The process begins with a petitioner requesting an emergency ex parte order for protection. ‘Ex parte’ simply means they can do it without you.
The petitioner completes a form that includes the petitioner’s or victim’s name, the respondent’s name, and the reasons to believe the respondent harassed the petitioner. These reasons must be provided in a sworn affidavit and detail specific facts and circumstances justifying protection.
The Court must find ‘reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in harassment before it can issue a temporary restraining order. The temporary order will either order the respondent to stop harassing the petitioner or to have no contact with the petitioner.
A temporary order stays in effect until the hearing on the restraining order takes place. The respondent must be served with the temporary order.
If the Court finds no reasonable grounds, it will deny the request for a restraining order. This rarely happens. If it does, the petitioner can request a hearing; however, the respondent must be notified of the hearing and given an opportunity to participate.
What Constitutes Harassment?
Many people misunderstand what constitutes harassment. Harassment isn’t just any behavior that offends someone.
Some acts are rare, such as a respondent participating in targeted residential picketing or attending public events with the knowledge that it will harass the petitioner.
A judge may issue an HRO based on a single incident of
- physical assault,
- sexual assault,
- nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images, or
- uses another’s personal information, without consent, to invite, encourage, or solicit a third party to engage in a sexual act with the person.
First, review the petition to identify which, if any, of these allegations are included.
Intrusive, Unwanted Acts, Words, Or Gestures
Petitioners generally claim that the Respondent engaged in ‘repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a significant adverse effect or are meant to have a significant adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship between the actor and the intended target.’
Answer the following questions:
- Question 1: What were the alleged acts, words, and gestures, and were they intrusive or unwanted?
- Question 2: Did this happen once, or were they repeated?
- Question 3: Did the acts, words, or gestures have a substantial adverse effect on the petitioner?
- Question 4: Or, regardless of actual effect, were they intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the petitioner? Harassment can be intentional or attempted.
Reasonable Grounds
Every case has a ‘standard of proof’ of how much evidence is needed to prove the allegations.
- Criminal cases require ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’
- Civil cases require ‘a preponderance’ of the evidence (more likely than not).
- ‘Probable cause’ means a judge has reasonable grounds to believe.
The standard of proof in HROs is ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe harassment occurred. While ‘reasonable grounds’ is not defined, it is akin to probable cause, which is a very low standard.
The court has considerable discretion in determining which ‘facts’ are proven, and which witnesses are credible.
Conduct Required
The statute requires objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the Respondent. The Petitioner must also have an objectively reasonable belief.
‘Objectively’ is more than a ‘subjective’ belief. Just because someone was offended does not make the conduct objectively unreasonable. The Court must find that an ordinary reasonable person objectively looks at the conduct or belief and concludes, “Yeah, that isn’t right. I’d feel the same way.”
Objectively unreasonable conduct is more than an acceptable expression of outrage and civilized conduct. It must cause a substantial adverse effect on another’s safety, security, or privacy. Or was it intended to cause that effect?
Inappropriate and argumentative conduct is not intrusive or intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of the Petitioner. People can still be jerks.
The Respondent and Petitioner’s relationship history provides context for deciding whether the conduct was objectively unreasonable and whether the allegations constitute an objectively reasonable belief.
What Are The Consequences?
If a judge grants an HRO, they can order the Respondent
- To stop harassing the Petitioner
- To have no contact with the Petitioner.
An HRO can be in effect for up to two years. If the Respondent violated a previous HRO protecting the same petitioner, the HRO can last 50 years.
Typically, a judge orders a Respondent to remain 1000 feet from the Petitioner, their home, and place of work.
No contact means YOU may not have contact with THEM. Courts do not have jurisdiction over the Petitioner.
The Petitioner is not prevented from contacting or being near the Respondent. The Respondent must stay away from the Petitioner and avoid any responses. Replying to the Petitioner’s texts or continuing a call initiated by the Petitioner can result in legal issues. The same rule applies to being in a bar, restaurant, grocery store, attending a school event, church, family gathering, or any place where the Petitioner might be present.
Violating an HRO is a crime. If the Respondent has no convictions for qualified domestic violence-related offenses, it is a misdemeanor, punishable by 90 days in jail and/or a $1000 fine.
Prior convictions within ten years of the violation will enhance the severity of the offense to a gross misdemeanor (up to 364 days and/or a $3000 fine) or a felony (up to five years or a $10,000 fine).
An employer may learn about an HRO during a background check. A person subject to an HRO might be barred from owning firearms and ammunition. Their ability to parent or keep custody of a child could be affected. Landlords might refuse to lease or rent to a Respondent.
Facing An HRO In Minnesota? Get Help Today.
An HRO is a serious matter. Working with a Minnesota harassment restraining order lawyer is the first step to guarding your rights and protecting yourself from an unwarranted HRO. Call attorney Chuck Gerlach for a free consultation at 952-952-9723. You can also contact an attorney online.