Lehnerz v. Christopher, 975 N.W.2d 585

Amber Lehnerz (and on behalf of her child O.E.P.) petitioned for a one-year disorderly conduct restraining order against Megan Christopher, a state highway patrol trooper and the mother of two of Lehnerz’s fiancé’s children.
Lehnerz alleged about a year of intrusive conduct by Christopher: photographing/videoing Lehnerz and her child after being asked to stop, confronting and blocking access at daycare, following/seeking her out in public, sitting near her at events, and making comments to Lehnerz’s son.
Christopher admitted taking some photos (including of Lehnerz’s “baby bump”) and being present at events but denied videotaping at one event and contended her actions were protected or harmless.
After two hearings the district court found reasonable grounds that Christopher engaged in disorderly conduct adversely affecting Lehnerz’s and her child’s safety, security, or privacy, concluded the conduct was not constitutionally protected, and entered the restraining order.
Christopher appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion because the facts did not support disorderly conduct and her actions were constitutionally protected; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reasonable grounds existed that respondent engaged in disorderly conduct	Lehnerz: multiple incidents show intrusive, unwanted acts (photos, blocking, following) intended to affect safety/privacy	Christopher: facts do not amount to disorderly conduct; conduct lawful or innocuous	Court: affirmed — testimony met statutory requirements; a person of reasonable caution could find disorderly conduct occurred
Whether respondent's conduct was constitutionally protected	Lehnerz: taking photos and following after being asked to stop is intrusive conduct, not protected speech	Christopher: photographing in public is expressive activity protected by the First Amendment	Court: not protected — conduct was intended to be intrusive, invaded privacy, and continued after requests to stop; limits exist on protected activity

Keller v. Keller, 894 N.W.2d 883 (N.D. 2017) (standard of review for restraining orders and requirement to exclude constitutionally protected activity)
Combs v. Lund, 858 N.W.2d 311 (N.D. 2015) (abuse of discretion standard)
Gonzalez v. Witzke, 813 N.W.2d 592 (N.D. 2012) (definition of reasonable grounds for issuing restraining orders)
City of Fargo v. Roehrich, 963 N.W.2d 248 (N.D. 2021) (First Amendment may protect content but not necessarily conduct used to deliver speech)
State v. Holbach, 763 N.W.2d 761 (N.D. 2009) (activities that harm another are not constitutionally protected)
Dunham v. Roer, 708 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (government may regulate conduct invasive of another's privacy)
Goosen v. Walker, 714 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (videotaping a neighbor can constitute stalking and be unprotected conduct)