“Stalking”; MCL 600.2950a(1); MCL 750.411h, i, & s; Law Enforcement Information Network

While the court found that “petitioner provided ample evidence for one of the two unconsented contacts required for the issuance of a PPO for stalking, he failed to provide sufficient evidence of a second.” Thus, it reversed the trial court, vacated the PPO, and remanded “with instructions that the PPO should be updated in LEIN as rescinded.” Respondent argued, “inter alia, that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the PPO because the conduct or speech at issue in this matter did not constitute stalking or harassment under the pertinent statutes.” The court held “that petitioner did not present evidence of stalking as required by MCL 600.2950a(1) and as defined by MCL 750.411h or MCL 750.411i, or conduct that is prohibited under MCL 750.411s.” It found that petitioner “failed to introduce evidence of a willful course of conduct in this matter, i.e., ‘two or more acts of unconsented contact that caused the victim to suffer emotional distress and that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress.’” The court noted that the “trial court found that: (1) respondent accused petitioner’s dog of biting her son’s leg while they were walking in the neighborhood, (2) animal control subsequently determined that the dog did not bite respondent’s child, and (3) petitioner felt threatened by respondent as a result of this incident.” The court found that while “the first two of these findings are supported by the record, a review of the hearing transcript reveals that petitioner never testified that he felt threatened by the incident,” nor did he “allege in his petition that he felt threatened on that occasion.” Also, while there was “no dispute that petitioner’s dog did not puncture the skin of respondent’s son, there is likewise no dispute that the dog jumped on respondent’s son.”