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.
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 him online.
Common Questions About Harassment Restraining Orders (HRO)
Read the order carefully and follow its terms immediately, even if you believe the allegations are false or exaggerated. A temporary harassment restraining order can prohibit contact with the petitioner and impose other restrictions before you have had an opportunity to tell your side of the story.
Do not contact the petitioner to argue about the allegations, ask them to withdraw the petition, or try to “clear things up.” Instead, preserve text messages, emails, social media posts, photographs, call records, witness information, and other evidence that may provide context for the allegations.
Yes. Being served with a petition or temporary order does not mean the allegations have been proven. A respondent may request a hearing and challenge whether the alleged conduct meets Minnesota’s legal definition of harassment.
The evidence and context can matter significantly. Communications between the parties, the history of their relationship, witnesses, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged incidents may all become important when defending against an HRO.
At an HRO hearing, the court can hear testimony and consider evidence from both sides before deciding whether a restraining order should remain in place. The petitioner must establish the grounds required under Minnesota law for the court to issue the order.
For a respondent, this is an important opportunity to challenge allegations, present evidence, provide context, question testimony, and explain why the legal requirements for an HRO have not been satisfied.
You still need to take the petition seriously. HRO proceedings frequently arise from conflicts in which the parties have very different accounts of what happened.
Messages, emails, photographs, videos, witnesses, timelines, and other evidence may help demonstrate that an allegation is inaccurate, incomplete, taken out of context, or does not legally constitute harassment. Avoid responding directly to the petitioner and focus instead on preserving evidence for your defense.
Not every unpleasant interaction constitutes harassment under Minnesota law. Minnesota’s HRO statute generally addresses repeated intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have, or are intended to have, a substantial adverse effect on another person’s safety, security, or privacy. Certain conduct, including a single incident of physical or sexual assault, can also qualify.
Whether particular words or conduct meet the statutory definition depends heavily on the facts and circumstances.
Do not assume that the petitioner’s contact gives you permission to respond. The restrictions in an HRO apply to the respondent. If the order prohibits you from contacting the petitioner, replying to a text, answering a phone call, responding through social media, or otherwise communicating may expose you to allegations that you violated the order.
Follow the order as written unless and until the court changes or dismisses it.
You should not attempt to get around a no-contact provision by using another person. Depending on the language of the order, having a friend, relative, coworker, or another person deliver a message could create serious problems.
If there is a legitimate reason that information needs to be exchanged, discuss how to handle it legally with your attorney rather than improvising.
What you are required to do depends on the specific terms of the HRO. If the order requires you to remain a certain distance away or prohibits contact, you should avoid interacting with the petitioner and comply with those restrictions.
An unexpected encounter can become complicated quickly. Do not use the encounter as an opportunity to discuss the case or your relationship.
Yes. Although an HRO proceeding itself is civil, violating an HRO can result in criminal charges. A violation may be charged as a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony depending on the circumstances and the respondent’s history.
That makes it important to understand exactly what an order prohibits and to comply with it while separately challenging the HRO through the court process.
An HRO itself is a civil court order rather than a criminal conviction. However, an alleged violation of the order can result in a separate criminal case.
An HRO may also create consequences beyond the courtroom, potentially affecting employment, housing, professional matters, firearms, family disputes, or background checks. Those potential consequences are another reason to take an HRO petition seriously even though the underlying proceeding is civil.
They are different types of court orders. An Order for Protection, or OFP, generally involves allegations of domestic abuse between people who have a qualifying family or household relationship. A Harassment Restraining Order can be sought regardless of the relationship between the parties.
Determining which law applies — and what the petitioner must prove — can be an important part of defending against a restraining order.
You are not required to have an attorney, but the consequences of an HRO can extend well beyond the hearing itself. An attorney can review the allegations and evidence, identify weaknesses or inconsistencies in the petitioner’s claims, prepare you for testimony, present evidence, and argue whether the conduct alleged actually satisfies Minnesota’s legal definition of harassment.
If you have been served with an HRO in Minnesota, speaking with an attorney before the hearing can also help you avoid mistakes that could make the situation worse.