State v. Phipps, 2012 Minn. App. LEXIS 104

Phipps was charged with violating an ex parte order for protection that barred contact with his estranged wife Y.S.P.
The ex parte OFP granted three forms of relief: (1) no physical harm, (2) exclusion from the family home, and (3) no contact by any means.
The order contained warnings about arrest, jail time, and potential misdemeanor to felony penalties.
The order was served on June 1, 2010, and a hearing was set; the petition was later dismissed on June 17.
In May 2011, Phipps moved to dismiss as void for vagueness, arguing the order did not expressly state no contact if Y.S.P. initiated contact.
The district court denied the motion, and in July 2011 a trial concluded Phipps violated the OFP; he was found guilty and sentenced to jail with most time stayed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the no-contact clause unconstitutionally vague and void for not addressing initiations by the petitioner?	Phipps argues the OFP lacks notice of prohibited conduct when Y.S.P. initiates contact.	The court should treat the clause as clear and definite, prohibiting all contact without exceptions.	No; the no-contact clause is sufficiently definite and not void for vagueness.

State v. Newstrom, 371 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. 1985) (due-process vagueness standard applied to criminal statutes)
Dunham v. Roer, 708 N.W.2d 552 (Minn.App. 2006) (due-process vagueness and notice principles in Minnesota)
State v. Bussmann, 741 N.W.2d 79 (Minn. 2007) (void-for-vagueness standard; ordinary people can understand prohibitions)
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1983) (vagueness requires statutes to define offenses with definite standards)
Pastos v. State, 194 P.3d 387 (Alaska 2008) (applies vagueness doctrine to protective orders)
Commonwealth v. Butler, 661 N.E.2d 666 (Mass.App.Ct. 1996) (interpreting sweeping no-contact provisions)
Peters-Riemers v. Riemers, 624 N.W.2d 83 (N.D. 2001) (interpretation of domestic-violence protective orders)