On appeal from the District Court’s issuance of a harassment restraining order (HRO) to respondent, appellant argued that the HRO was not supported by the record and constituted an unconstitutional restraint upon her right of free speech. The District Court relied on appellant’s repeated text messages, appellant’s calls to respondent’s wife, and the picketing outside of respondent’s place of employment to support the issuance of the HRO. The Court of Appeals concluded that these constituted intrusive acts, and that there were reasonable grounds to believe that appellant engaged in harassment. Affirmed.
A14-2163 Engelmann v. Christos (Ramsey County)