Thompson v. Bear Runner, 916 N.W.2d 127

Neighbors in a small Lakota Homes community, Sarah Thompson filed for a protection order alleging Wambli Bear Runner stalked and harassed her via Facebook posts, private messages, and complaints to Sarah’s employer and police.
Dispute began after Sarah briefly dated Wambli’s ex; parties exchanged insults in 2014 and resumed antagonistic interactions in 2016.
Wambli made multiple public Facebook posts naming or clearly referring to Sarah, used fake Facebook accounts to send private messages urging Sarah to “disappear,” and sent employer complaints about Sarah.
Sarah filed a police report and then a petition for a protection order for stalking under SDCL 22-19A-1 (willful, malicious, repeated harassment by electronic means).
After a two-day hearing with testimony and exhibits, the circuit court found harassment and stalking by a preponderance of the evidence and granted the protection order.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the circuit court’s findings were conclusory and failed to identify which specific acts satisfied the statutory elements of stalking.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the protection order was supported by proper findings	Thompson argued the court’s general findings showed a preponderance that Wambli’s communications constituted stalking	Bear Runner argued the court’s findings were insufficiently specific about which acts were harassing	Reversed and remanded: findings were conclusory and merely parroted statutory language; court must identify specific conduct meeting stalking elements
Whether conduct constituted stalking under SDCL 22-19A-1	Thompson contended posts, private messages, and complaints met statutory elements (willful, malicious, repeated harassment)	Bear Runner contended her speech and posts were not unlawful harassment and some were constitutionally protected	Not reached on merits — court declined to decide because inadequate findings prevented meaningful review
Whether the protection order was unconstitutionally vague (due process)	Thompson implicitly argued order was valid and narrowly tailored	Bear Runner argued the order was vague and violated due process by not defining prohibited conduct	Not reached — remand for specific findings made further constitutional review premature

Doremus v. Morrow, 897 N.W.2d 341 (S.D. 2017) (circuit court must make findings sufficient to show how facts satisfy statutory elements)
Repp v. Van Someren, 866 N.W.2d 122 (S.D. 2015) (meaningful appellate review requires identification of how evidence met statutory elements)
Shroyer v. Fanning, 780 N.W.2d 467 (S.D. 2010) (standard for setting aside factual findings)
Goeden v. Daum, 688 N.W.2d 108 (S.D. 2003) (findings must provide basis for conclusions with sufficient specificity)
Donat v. Johnson, 862 N.W.2d 122 (S.D. 2015) (standard of review for protection order decisions)
Erickson v. Earley, 878 N.W.2d 631 (S.D. 2016) (abuse of discretion and clear-error standards explained)