Rew v. Bergstrom
812 N.W.2d 832
Minn. Ct. App.2011Background
- Bergstrom challenged a district court ruling extending an OFP for 50 years based on prior OFP violations.
- The 50-year extension precludes contact with Vanessa Rew and the couple's two children and imposes geographic and firearm restrictions.
- The initial OFPs were entered from 2002 to 2010, with multiple violations by Bergstrom and admissions/agreements to restraints.
- Respondent petitioned for the 50-year extension citing prior violations, fear of harm, stalking, and Bergstrom’s recent release from incarceration.
- Evidence at the extension hearing focused on Bergstrom’s past OFP violations and arrest/incarceration; Bergstrom offered other witnesses whose testimony was excluded as irrelevant.
- The district court found the statutory criteria for a 50-year extension satisfied under Minn.Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6a(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment challenge | Bergstrom argues 6a(b) is a prior restraint on speech. | Court held no content-based restraint; extension is narrowly tailored. | No First Amendment violation |
| Due process | Bergstrom asserts 50-year extension is a quasi-criminal sanction requiring notice. | Extension is civil/remedial; no direct criminal consequence requires notice. | No due process violation |
| Double jeopardy | Extension punishes same conduct for which Bergstrom was convicted. | OFP extension is remedial civil sanction, not criminal punishment. | No double jeopardy violation |
| Ex post facto | Extending under 6a(b) punishes conduct predating the provision’s enactment. | Statute is civil/regulatory; does not punish crime retroactively. | No ex post facto violation |
| Abuse showing requirement | Subdivision 6a(b) should require abuse findings before a 50-year extension. | Statute does not require ongoing abuse finding for extension. | No abuse showing required; district court properly interpreted |
Key Cases Cited
- Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of W. N.Y., 519 U.S. 357 (U.S. Supreme Court 1997) (no automatic prior-restraint applying to content-neutral injunctions)
- Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (U.S. Supreme Court 1994) (no all-encompassing injunction; balance speech and non-speech interests)
- United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (U.S. Supreme Court 1968) (government may regulate nonspeech elements to serve substantial interest)
- Dunham v. Roer, 708 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. App. 2006) (harassment statutes not all protected speech; context matters)
- State v. Machholz, 574 N.W.2d 415 (Minn. 1998) (overbreadth concerns in harassment statutes)
- Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (speech not of public concern interacts with private interests)
- Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 1992) (state has a significant interest in preventing domestic violence)
- State v. Range, 547 N.W.2d 173 (S.D. 1996) (domestic abuse protection orders preserve governmental interests)
- State v. Doyle, 787 N.W.2d 254 (Neb. App. 2010) (state interest in protecting victims from harassment)