Modification of an ex parte personal protection order (PPO); Mootness; Errors made by the trial court; Constitutionally protected activities; Matter of public concern; Right to attend court hearings; Legitimate public purpose; Act of confronting petitioner; Two or more acts; Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC)
The court affirmed the trial court’s order modifying an ex parte PPO against respondent. He was a corrections officer for the MDOC. “Petitioner worked as an Internal Affairs investigator for the MDOC.” The court noted “two important facts relevant to our review of this matter. First, petitioner did not provide any written materials to this Court, and second, most of respondent’s challenges are moot.” For clarity and completeness, the court assumed he was “disputing the original PPO, as its validity pertains to his argument in favor of sanctions. Nonetheless, . . . at least some of the provisions in the original PPO were not erroneous; therefore, respondent’s challenges to any additional provisions pertain more to the scope of the PPO rather than its validity, ultimately rendering them moot.” The court held that “after reviewing the context and circumstances surrounding this case, it is evident that none of these errors are significant enough to justify a reversal of the trial court’s decision. Each error, while noted, falls short of impacting the overall outcome.” Also, after “reviewing all of the evidence, the trial court did not err in concluding that, while some of respondent’s conduct may have constitutional protection, respondent transgressed into areas of illegitimate and unprotected harassment and intimidation that served no legitimate purpose.” Finally, the record plainly revealed “that respondent’s conduct was harassment of petitioner that continued over a period of time. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by issuing the original PPO. Therefore, all of respondent’s other challenges are moot.”
Full PDF Opinion