PPO based on stalking; MCL 600.2950a(1); Stalking under MCL 750.411h or MCL 750.411i or conduct prohibited under MCL 750.411s; “Stalking”; MCL 750.411h(1)(d); “Course of conduct”; MCL 750.411h(1)(a); “Harassment”; MCL 750.411h(1)(c); “Unconsented contact”; MCL 750.411h(1)(e); MCL 750.411s(1)

Holding that petitioner-deputy fire chief failed to meet his burden of proof for obtaining a PPO against respondent-photo journalist, the court vacated the trial court’s order granting the PPO and remanded. The trial court granted petitioner a PPO that prohibited respondent from stalking him or posting a message online about him for one year. On appeal, the court agreed with respondent that the trial court erred by granting the PPO because there was insufficient evidence of a continuous course of threatening conduct that qualified as stalking. “Although petitioner testified that there was a barrel fire behind his home, there was no evidence that respondent ever got of his car and approached petitioner’s premises on foot. Rather, petitioner testified that he filed an incident report with the police regarding respondent’s written and video Facebook posts, and he was advised” by the police and members of the fire command to file for a PPO. “However, a lack of evidence to warrant a criminal charge does not equate with the issuance of a stalking PPO. Petitioner readily admitted that respondent’s Facebook posts were merely of ‘concern’ and expressly denied feeling harassed and threatened.”