IME v. DBS
306 Mich. App. 426
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Respondent DBS was convicted in a criminal proceeding of sexual offenses against IME when DBS was 12 and IME was 6.
- In 2012 IME’s father petitioned for a personal protection order (PPO) on her behalf after a game incident where IME, age 9, was frightened by DBS.
- The trial court granted the PPO and expanded its scope beyond the petition, barring DBS from various forms of contact and prohibiting firearm possession.
- The PPO remained through October 2013, with service to DBS and IME’s guardian; DBS later moved to modify or terminate the PPO.
- The trial court denied the motion to declare the statute unconstitutional but amended the order to permit DBS to possess a firearm while hunting with family; the appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of MCL 600.2950a(2)(a) | DBS argues the statute is unconstitutional on overbreadth and due process grounds. | IME argues the statute serves a valid aim of protecting victims of sexual assault. | Statute passes constitutional scrutiny. |
| Procedural due process safeguards | DBS claims automatic PPOs deny meaningful hearing. | IME contends safeguards (notice, hearing, modification) are adequate. | Safeguards are constitutionally sufficient. |
| Burden of proof for issuance | DBS contends burden is too light or misaligned with rights. | IME contends burden reflects actual past injury and danger to victim. | Burden appropriately tied to prior conviction and protection needs. |
| Scope and tailoring of PPOs | DBS argues broad, perpetual potential restraints violate liberty. | IME asserts court can tailor orders and modify as necessary. | Trial court discretion allows appropriate tailoring and modification. |
| Juvenile adjudication applicability | DBS asserts limits on applying statute to juveniles were not challenged. | IME contends statute applies as enacted, with due process safeguards. | Court notes no challenge to juvenile applicability was raised; decision stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonner v. Brighton, 495 Mich 209 (2014) (constitutional reviewing standard and deference to statute validity)
- Kampf v. Kampf, 237 Mich App 377 (1999) (procedural safeguards sufficient for due process in PPOs)
- Minch v. People, 493 Mich 87 (2012) (due process for convicted defendants in related context)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial challenges require showing no valid circumstances)
- Pickering v. Pickering, 253 Mich App 694 (2002) (trial courts are best positioned to address PPO misuse)
- People v. Be cley, 434 Mich 691 (1990) (recognition of heinous nature of sexual assault for policy purposes)