Erickson v. Earley, 878 N.W.2d 631

Erickson (petitioner) obtained permission to hunt on the Grommersch property and used trail cameras there; Earley later appeared on that property without permission.
Three confrontations between Earley and Erickson occurred between Feb.–Aug. 2015: two in-person incidents where Earley pulled alongside Erickson’s parked vehicle shouting profanities and stating groups were “coming for you,” and one phone call demanding Erickson remove items from a gas station and again saying multiple people were “coming for you.”
Grommersch landowners had Earley served with a no-trespass order after finding Earley on their land placing bait/attractants.
Erickson reported the incidents to law enforcement and petitioned for a protection order alleging stalking (harassment and credible threats).
The circuit court credited Erickson’s testimony, found Earley’s conduct constituted stalking/harassment under SDCL 22-19A, and issued a permanent protection order. Earley appealed.

Issue	Erickson's Argument	Earley's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the protection order (stalking/harassment)	Evidence shows a course of conduct (three incidents) that willfully and maliciously harassed Erickson, meeting statutory stalking/harassment	Incidents do not form a course of conduct or show malicious intent; conduct was political/verbal disagreement, not stalking	Affirmed: three incidents constituted a course of conduct; court reasonably inferred malice and harassment; no abuse of discretion
Whether the protection order violated Earley’s First Amendment free-speech rights	Speech here functioned as threatening/harassing conduct and is unprotected; statute addresses conduct, not lawful speech	Statements are protected speech, not "true threats" or "fighting words"; order improperly restricts expression	Affirmed: court held threatening/harassing speech is not protected by the First Amendment; order validly addressed stalking/harassment

Asmussen v. State, 668 N.W.2d 725 (S.D. 2003) (freedom of expression does not include threatening or harassing conduct)
Schaefer ex rel. S.S. v. Liechti, 711 N.W.2d 257 (S.D. 2006) (three incidents may constitute a "course of conduct" for stalking)
Huether v. Mihm Transp. Co., 857 N.W.2d 854 (S.D. 2014) (appellate review accepts evidence favorable to verdict and reasonable inferences)
Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (U.S. 1919) (freedom of expression not absolute; does not immunize all uses of language)
Crelly v. State, 313 N.W.2d 455 (S.D. 1981) (no right to make obscene or harassing telephone calls)