State of Minnesota v. Joel Thomas Samuelson
A15-1811
| Minn. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- In July 2013 W.C. and R.C. obtained an ex parte temporary harassment restraining order (HRO) against Joel Samuelson, prohibiting him from being within 1,000 feet of their home and lake cabin and advising he could request a hearing within 45 days.
- Samuelson did not request the 45‑day hearing or otherwise appeal the HRO; the ex parte order became final.
- In August 2014 W.C. and R.C. observed Samuelson about 300 feet from their lake property; Samuelson was charged with violating the HRO under Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 6(c).
- Samuelson moved to dismiss, arguing the HRO violated his constitutional right to travel; the district court denied the motion on two independent grounds: (1) Samuelson was precluded from challenging the HRO’s constitutionality because he failed to do so in the civil proceeding where it was issued, and (2) alternatively, the HRO did not unconstitutionally burden travel given the State’s interest in preventing harassment.
- Samuelson stipulated to the prosecution’s case to obtain appellate review of the pretrial ruling; he was convicted after a bench trial and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Samuelson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Samuelson is precluded from challenging the HRO’s constitutionality in the criminal prosecution | Samuelson: He may challenge the HRO now because he lacked an immediate right to appeal the ex parte temporary HRO | State: Samuelson is precluded because he could have sought a hearing within 45 days and then appealed if unsuccessful | Court: Precluded — must challenge validity in the case where the order was issued; Samuelson failed to seek the available district‑court hearing and appeal |
| Whether the HRO violated Samuelson’s right to travel | Samuelson: The restriction unconstitutionally burdens his right to travel | State: The HRO imposes only a minimal burden justified by the State’s legitimate interest in protecting victims from harassment | Court: Declined to reach the merits because of preclusion; district court also found alternatively the HRO was justified, but appellate decision rests on preclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harrington, 504 N.W.2d 500 (Minn. App. 1993) (party who failed to litigate or appeal constitutionality of HRO in the civil proceeding may not attack it collaterally in later criminal case)
- State v. Romine, 757 N.W.2d 884 (Minn. App. 2008) (OFP is final judgment when not timely appealed; collateral attack in later criminal prosecution barred)
- State v. Cook, 148 N.W.2d 368 (Minn. 1967) (underlying suspension or order must be challenged in the proceeding where issued; cannot be collaterally attacked on appeal from its violation)
- Fiduciary Foundation, LLC v. Brown, 834 N.W.2d 756 (Minn. App. 2013) (ex parte temporary orders are not immediately appealable)
- State v. Ness, 819 N.W.2d 219 (Minn. App. 2012) (permitting collateral attack where appellant had no procedural opportunity to seek immediate appellate review)
- State v. Phipps, 820 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. App. 2012) (court addressed constitutional vagueness challenge to an OFP on appeal where the state did not invoke collateral‑attack bar)