*1 Plaintiff-Appellant, Wisconsin, STATE v. Defendant-Respondent. SARLUND, James Supreme Court 19, January Argued 86-0194-CR. 1987. Decided June No. (Also reported 544.) in 407 N.W.2d *2 For plaintiff-appellant the cause was argued Balistreri, by Thomas J. assistant attorney general, (in with whom on the briefs court of appeals) was Follette, Bronson C. La attorney general.
For defendant-respondent there was a brief (in appeals) court of by Mary E. argument and oral Waitrovich, public assistant state defender. CECI,
LOUIS J. J. This is an appeal from a decision of the circuit court for Dane county, Judge Boll, James C. accepted on the certification of the appeals, pursuant 808.05(2), court of to sec. Stats. The from, appealed decision which was by Judge entered 12, 1985, Boll on December vacated defendant James Sarlund’s violating conviction for an injunction which to sec. 813.125.1 Boll pursuant issued conviction because he believed vacated defendant’s to be unconstitutional.2 The sole issue provides, pertinent part, 1 That statute follows: "813.125 HARASSMENT RESTRAINING ORDERS AND (1) section, INJUNCTIONS. Definition. In this 'harassment' any following: means "(b) Engaging repeatedly in a course of conduct or commit- ting person harass acts which or intimidate another and which legitimate purpose. serve no order, "(3) (a) Temporary restraining judge may A issue a temporary restraining ordering respondent order to cease or following avoid the harassment of another if all of the occur: *3 petitioner petition alleging "1. The files a the elements set (5)(a). forth under sub. judge grounds "2. The finds reasonable to believe that the respondent has violated sec. 947.013 criminal harassment [the statute]. "(4) (a) judge grant Injunction, may injunction A an ordering respondent the to cease or avoid the harassment of following another if all of the occur: petitioner petition alleging "1. The has filed a the elements (5)(a). set forth under sub. petitioner upon respondent copy "2. The serves the a of a (3) restraining order obtained under sub. and notice of the time for (3)(c). hearing the on the issuance of the under sub. hearing, judge grounds "3. After the finds reasonable to respondent that has violated 947.013. believe the sec. Petition, "(5) (a) petition allege shall facts sufficient to following: show the person alleged "1. who is the The name of victim. respondent. "2. The name of respondent "3. That the "(b) has violated sec. 947.013. provide simplified The clerk of circuit court shall forms.” issue, namely, 2 The an additional whether court addressed permitted plea a on Sarlund should be to withdraw no-contest 813.125, raised on Is appeal is: sec. unconstitutionally vague and overbroad? We hold that is constitution- al, reasoning consistent with the articulated by this Salamone, court Bachowski v. 397, 139 Wis. 2d 533, N.W.2d also today. decided Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the circuit court which addressed the issue of the of that constitutionality remand the cause to the trial for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
I. giving The facts rise to this case are summarized (Sarlund) below. Defendant James Sarlund met Julie (Ramstad) Ramstad at a time when both were at a college students in Rock At junior county. met, parties time the Sarlund was in his mid-twenties returning and was to school after an unsuccessful to attempt obtain a with a position professional football team. Ramstad,
Upon meeting Sarlund decided that he "right was the man” for her and began thereafter a campaign get end, to a date with her. To this Sarlund began to write love letters in which he asked her for dates. Ramstad declined his overtures. persistent, upon Sarlund remained especially learning rumors Ramstad was associated romantically with men who he took advantage believed of her or *4 her and of spoke otherwise treated her with disres- pect. He also learned that some Ramstad’s boy- making friends were unfavorable comments about grounds knowingly voluntarily Judge not that was and made. affirmative, question providing Boll answered that in the thus justification judgment. further for vacation of the will deal We aspect opinion. with that Boll’s decision later in this him. quoted Sarlund is as saying rumors he me, stop heard "didn’t because that made me more prove determined I that was an all [to Ramstad] right guy.”
Thereafter, Sarlund became even persistent more than before. He continued to write letters to Ramstad. Sarlund used the letters as a vehicle to convince Ramstad that he was not a "loser” and that he could prove his worth to her if she would him give a chance. Sarlund also had an painting oil made of Ramstad (without permission), her repeatedly called her on the telephone, approached school, followed her and her at house, watched her parents, met with her contacted her employer, threatened her dates. On one occasion, Sarlund was forcibly removed by police from the home of one of Ramstad’s boyfriends. Ram- stad advances, continued to resist Sarlund’s and the two never became However, romantically involved. Sarlund claimed that Ramstad occasionally appeared at bars which he was frequent known to and on one occasion, she approached him reportedly and told him her, that he could call parents but that her advised against her becoming involved with Sarlund in any way. Sarlund apparently construed this statement the reciprocation advances, of his but Ramstad contin- offers, ued to rebuff his in no uncertain terms. At the injunction hearing, Ramstad’s attorney stated that his client was hospitalized due to a nervous breakdown which was caused by Sarlund’s behavior. Ramstad also reportedly developed nervosa, anorexia again as a result of Sarlund’s behavior. 22,1984,
Subsequently, on May an injunction was issued Rock by county circuit court Judge Mark J. Farnum, enjoining Sarlund from contacting parents, her and the men with whom she associated. *5 the of a was issued based on existence
The statute and was effective of the harassment violation 1984, 4, 1986. 4, through June Sarlund was June noncompliance the for with the penalties informed of injunction. later, initiated than six months Sarlund
Less Ramstad, and writing sending her letters contact with a accompanied by of flowers which was bouquet her a in Dane complaint county A criminal was issued note. 1984, on November and Sarlund was circuit court violating counts of the charged injunction. with five to the first count con- pled no contest Sarlund complaint, pursuant agreement in the to an tained that prosecution. agreement provided the That with remaining four counts would be read for the court, Judge The circuit purposes sentencing. Boll, found Sarlund accepted plea, guilty James C. the count, remaining counts. of the first and dismissed eighteen for Judge placed probation Boll Sarlund on counseling, the condition that he obtain months on costs, and cease all contact with plus a fine court pay acquaintances. parents, her and Ramstad’s 8, 1985. of conviction was dated March judgment post-conviction thereafter filed a motion Sarlund seeking circuit court for Dane county, with the of conviction. Sarlund asserted judgment vacate should be withdrawn because plea that the no-contest made. The court knowingly voluntarily it was not motion, reasoning that absent an granted Sarlund’s showing plea that the defendant’s affirmative made, be withdrawn. The should understandingly regarding present arguments no to this parties dealing with aspect Boll’s decision However, it is plea. no-contest withdrawal of Sarlund’s to the circuit this cause be remanded appropriate *6 hearing may court so that a be held on the issue of plea knowingly whether Sarlund's ly was necessary and voluntari- hearing made. A is to ensure that the court's determination on this issue is made in accord- ance with recent decisions of this court. constitutionality The court next addressed the finding vague statute, the harassment it to be and overbroad. The court believed that the statute as punish constitutionally written could be used to protected speech or conduct. The court further found intimidate," that the words ~harass or contained in subject narrowing statute, the tion. It reached the same conclusion about the ~which were not to a construc- legitimate purpose" language serve no contained in addition, the statute. statute had a real and substantial deterrent effect on In the court stated that legitimate (though perhaps annoying obnoxious) speech findings, or conduct. Based on these the trial accordingly, and, court struck down the statute vacat- judgment ed defendant's conviction. Final on December was entered 1985. The state filed a notice of appeal appeals January 27, with the court of on appeals requested accept The that this court appeal September 2, certification of the state's on request granted 1986, and the certification on September 16, 1986.
II. Today, Salamone, in Bachowski v. this court upholds constitutionality 813.125, Stats., of sec. finding vague that it is neither nor overbroad. The court upholds constitutionality procedures also of certain obtaining injunc- n which sec. 813.125makes available for who has against allegedly
tive relief an individual statute, violated the criminal harassment sec. 947.013.3 principles We need not reiterate the which are articulat- say analysis in Bachowski. ed Suffice it to that the used interpretation of the statute Judge there renders Boll's decision, invalid. insofar as it struck down Boll's statute, is, constitutionality of the harassment accordingly, reversed. the harassment legislative intent behind legislature "the has indicates plainly privacy on the prevent repeated assaults
sought infring- unnecessarily individuals without interests of *7 through themselves express freedom to ing on their Bachowski, 11. The intrusion at speech and conduct.” to has not say, needless privacy, on Julie Ramstad’s she repeatedly Not was only been insubstantial. watched, also the of subject but she was followed and The defendant calls and letters. frequent telephone Sarlund’s employer. and her parents her contacted friends, on Ramstad’s male was also focused attention repeti- This type were threatened. some of whom of another is tive, privacy intrusion into the deliberate 813.125 and secs. of conduct exactly type Stats., 947.013, designed proscribe. to were or in- restraining order temporary a Whenever is the harassment for violation of junction pertinent part, follows: provides, 3 That statute (1) Whoever, to with intent HARASSMENT. "947.013 following any is does intimidate another harass or subject B forfeiture: to a Class "(b) repeatedly Engages commits or in a course of conduct person no which serve which harass or intimidate acts legitimate purpose.” sought, required the court is to find that there are grounds reasonable to believe that the defendant has violated the statute, criminal harassment sec. 947.013. finding specifically Such a was made here. The court instructed Sarlund to cease all communications with family, acquaintances. Ramstad, her and her male initially Sarlund knew which conduct the court found objectionable, to be and he knew which conduct he prohibited engaging subsequent from to is- injunction. suance of the This is not a case where the feign ignorance defendant can and claim that he had possible no notice of the sanctions or of the conduct sought prevent. which the court to This also is not a case where the circuit court was examples left without concrete of harassment support an ultimate decision that an should presented adequate issue. The court was with an explanation type sought of conduct to be enjoined. specific It was aware of instances of harass- ing example, behavior. For the court was informed of specific offending dates on which some of the conduct occurred. It was told of the location of some of the conduct, as well as of which individuals were involved. The court was informed of the nature of Sarlund’s (i.e., behavior it knew that numerous, Sarlund sent nonthreatening letters to but that he threat- *8 boyfriends ened Ramstad’s in on one occasion leading by boyfriend’s removal, to his force, from a residence). The identification of the offensive conduct precise sufficiently satisfy was to the standards for equitable prosecutor issuance of relief. The did not allege, merely general in terms, that Ramstad had types been "harassed” or "intimidated.” Those of general allegations would not have been sufficient See, Bachowski, at of the statute.
under the strictures 412-413. reemphasize principles simply these to
We restate necessity providing the court with the absolute examples specific of harassment to allow to make temporary restraining injunction order or deter- upon vague rely just mination with more to allegations. than complete importance of a recitation of The justify and circumstances which could is- facts temporary restraining injunction, order or suance of a process standpoint, overly from a due cannot be emphasized. See, Bachowski, 412-414. at
By of the circuit court is the Court.—The decision part, in is remanded to the reversed and the cause proceedings circuit court for further consistent with opinion. this {concurring). CECI, I J. J. write a concur-
LOUIS opinion solely point my majority out an rence to by in her dissent. The error made Justice Abrahamson erroneously states, "[UJnder the test set forth dissent upon injunction Bachowski, which the convic- opinion pages Dissenting at is invalid." tion is based points opinion out that the court of this 395-396. issuing only after the was issued type explanation adequate "presented an with opinion page Majority sought enjoined." at to be conduct purposes. for constitutional This was sufficient JUSTICES RO- I am authorized to state that STEINMETZ, DAY, B. W. LAND DONALD concurring opin- joins this WILLIAM A. BABLITCH ion. (dissenting ABRAHAMSON, J.
SHIRLEY S. part). vacat- I circuit court Boll’s would affirm *9 ing the defendant’s conviction. Boll declared explained the statute to be unconstitutional. IAs in my Salamone, concurrence in v. Bachowski 139 Wis. 533, I conclude the 2d N.W.2d by construed this court to include verbal communica- tions is unconstitutional.
Furthermore, constitutional, even if the statute is in because, conviction this case must be vacated injunction Bachowski, under the test set forth in upon which the conviction is based is invalid. Bachow- requires injunction specific ski that the "be as to the enjoined.” Majority opin- acts and conduct which are page injuction ion enjoined 414. in The this case restrained and telephoning, contacting, writing
Sarlund "from
intimidating
any way harassing
to,
Petitioner,
or
Injunction
by
Julie Ramstad." See
entered
the Rock
county
4, 1984;
circuit
Record, 24-23,
court on June
injunction
This
has the same defects as the
(majority opinion pages
Bachowski,
I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE opinion. joins NATHAN S. HEFFERNAN this