Personal protection order (PPO); Nondomestic stalking; MCL 600.2950a(1); MCL 750.411h; “Course of conduct”; “Harassment”; “Unconsented contact”; Emotional distress; Constitutionally protected activity; First Amendment; “Fighting words”; Chaplinsky v New Hampshire; CNN v SEB; Adequacy of findings; MCL 600.2950a(7); MCR 3.705(B)(6)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by issuing petitioner-neighbor a nondomestic stalking PPO because the petition and hearing evidence established respondent-neighbor’s willful course of harassing unconsented contact. Petitioner alleged a series of incidents in which respondent used racial slurs, moved objects onto petitioner’s property, damaged or interfered with petitioner’s property, and escalated confrontations between the neighboring households. On appeal, the court first held that the trial court made an adequate record because it held two hearings, gave oral reasons, and entered written orders, so “appellate review would not be furthered by remanding this case for a second time.” The court next held that several incidents constituted unconsented contact, including respondent intentionally blowing dirt and rocks onto petitioner’s vehicle, moving cement blocks onto petitioner’s property in a manner that damaged a trailer, intentionally striking petitioner’s trash can, taking petitioner’s ladders, and initiating the 2/25 verbal confrontation. The court rejected respondent’s claim that his repeated racial invective was protected speech, explaining that although the First Amendment protects unpopular or offensive expression, it does not protect “fighting words,” and respondent’s language and conduct provided “necessary context” for contacts that otherwise might have appeared innocent. The court also distinguished CNN, reasoning that respondent’s “repeated use of racial invectives alone” did not support the PPO, but his words could be considered with his conduct to show intent. Affirmed.