897 N.W.2d 341
S.D.2017Background
- Petitioner Sean Doremus, a Brookings County deputy sheriff, sought a stalking protection order alleging Corey Morrow repeatedly followed and harassed him after Doremus arrested Morrow for DUI.
- Three incidents underpin the petition: (1) post-arrest statements by Morrow implying a future "conversation," a confrontation on the street after release, and an arrest-related blood draw; (2) a grocery-store encounter two months later where Morrow allegedly followed Doremus through aisles, photographed him and his license plate, and waited as Doremus left; (3) a late-night traffic encounter where Morrow parked nearby and approached Doremus while Doremus conducted an unrelated stop, then left when backup was requested.
- Morrow admitted the encounters but claimed innocent or coincidental explanations (mistaken identity, incidental driving, weather use of a police-scanner app).
- The circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing, found Morrow lacked credibility on key points, entered oral and written findings that Morrow willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly followed and harassed Doremus, and granted the stalking protection order.
- Morrow appealed, arguing the court’s findings were insufficient for meaningful appellate review and that his conduct was constitutionally protected (First Amendment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court’s findings were sufficient for meaningful appellate review | Doremus argued findings identified which statutory stalking elements were met and rejected Morrow’s explanations | Morrow argued the findings were conclusory and failed to explain how facts met stalking elements | Court held findings—oral and written—were specific enough: they adopted factual version, addressed sub-elements, and permitted review; affirmed order |
| Whether evidence supported finding of willful, malicious, and repeated following/harassment | Doremus pointed to repeated encounters, threatening statements, photos, and proximity/monitoring as evidence of harassment and continuity of purpose | Morrow claimed coincidence, mistaken identity, innocent motives, and benign use of scanner app | Court held evidence supported findings of a course of conduct evidencing continuity of purpose and no legitimate purpose; findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the court abused discretion in issuing protection order | Doremus maintained court reasonably exercised discretion after credibility findings | Morrow asserted abuse because findings insufficient and conduct protected (free speech) | Court held no abuse of discretion; order affirmed |
| Whether First Amendment protections bars stalking order | Doremus did not concede constitutional defense; relied on statutory elements and facts | Morrow argued smiling, staring, photographing officers in public are protected speech and conduct | Court declined to consider constitutional challenge (not raised below); also noted factual inconsistency with Morrow’s account |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Earley, 878 N.W.2d 631 (S.D. 2016) (standard of review for protection orders and abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Repp v. Van Someren, 866 N.W.2d 122 (S.D. 2015) (trial court must make findings explaining which facts it credits to permit meaningful appellate review)
- Shroyer v. Fanning, 780 N.W.2d 467 (S.D. 2010) (reversal where findings were too general to show how evidence met stalking elements)
- Goeden v. Daum, 668 N.W.2d 108 (S.D. 2003) (insufficient findings require reversal)
- March v. Thursby, 806 N.W.2d 239 (S.D. 2011) (reversal where findings did not correspond to the evidence)
- Boever v. South Dakota Board of Accountancy, 526 N.W.2d 747 (S.D. 1995) (appellate court generally will not consider issues not raised below)