908 N.W.2d 687
N.D.2018Background
- J.B. (a minor) and R.B. began dating in Vermont when both were 16; J.B. and her mother Jodie Jacobs later moved to North Dakota.
- Jacobs petitioned for a disorderly conduct restraining order on behalf of J.B., alleging manipulative and controlling conduct by R.B., including suicide threats, instructions controlling J.B.’s friendships and posts, and derogatory messages to J.B. and Jacobs.
- A temporary restraining order issued, and after a hearing the district court granted a two-year disorderly conduct restraining order against R.B.
- R.B. appealed, arguing the petition did not establish reasonable grounds (probable cause) that he engaged in disorderly conduct as defined by statute.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the sworn petition and any accompanying affidavit (the four-corners) alleged specific intrusive or unwanted acts intended to adversely affect J.B.’s safety, security, or privacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition established reasonable grounds that respondent engaged in disorderly conduct | Petition alleged threats of self-harm, controlling and harassing directives, and insulting messages showing conduct intrusive to J.B. | Allegations show manipulation and disrespect but not threats of violence, privacy invasion, or intent to adversely affect safety/security; insufficient as a matter of law. | Reversed. Petition did not, within its four corners, show the required intent or specific acts to support disorderly conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanisch v. Kroshus, 827 N.W.2d 528 (N.D. 2013) (upheld restraining order where respondent sent harassing texts and nonconsensual images that intruded on petitioner’s privacy)
- Skadberg v. Skadberg, 644 N.W.2d 873 (N.D. 2002) (upheld order where respondent repeatedly harassed petitioner with obscene calls and threats affecting legal/financial consequences)
- Tibor v. Lund, 599 N.W.2d 301 (N.D. 1999) (defining reasonable grounds as synonymous with probable cause)
- Mitzel v. Larson, 890 N.W.2d 817 (N.D. 2017) (petition must allege specific unwanted acts and intent to affect safety, security, or privacy)
- Cusey v. Nagel, 695 N.W.2d 697 (N.D. 2005) (subjective fear or mere desire to end a relationship is insufficient for disorderly conduct relief)
- Holbach v. Dixon, 730 N.W.2d 613 (N.D. 2007) (petition and affidavit limit issues at hearing to protect due process)