Nondomestic PPO; MCL 600.2950a(1); “Stalking”; MCL 750.411h(1)(d); “Course of conduct”; MCL 750.411h(1)(a); “Harassment”; MCL 740.411h(1)(c); “Uncontested contact”; MCL 750.411h(1)(e); The First Amendment; TM v MZ; “True threats”; Virginia v Black

Holding that while respondent-SEB’s statements were “ugly, rude, and insensitive,” they nonetheless “fell within the range of expression protected by the First Amendment,” the court vacated the trial court’s order granting petitioner-CNN a PPO, and remanded. The parties “are neighbors who share a driveway. For years, their families have feuded about the driveway’s use. The conflicts” have led to repeated requests for PPOs. The trial “court finally granted the PPO challenged here, citing SEB’s odious and racially charged comments.” CNN contended SEB’s conduct violated MCL 750.411h. The court concluded the trial court “misstated the legal requirement for securing a PPO by characterizing a ‘single incident’ as sufficient. But [it] did not misapply that provision of the law.” However, despite applying the correct standard as to past events between the parties, the trial court “erred in granting a PPO based solely on SEB’s statement, ‘[H]ere come your masser (sic).’” The court held that imposing “a PPO based on SEB’s single, nonthreatening comment violated the First Amendment.” It noted in TM that there “is no categorical ‘harassment exception’ to the First Amendment’s free speech clause.” It concluded here that by “stating, ‘[H]ere come your masser (sic),’ SEB did not threaten CNN, and the evidence does not support that she intended her words to generate violence. Rather, SEB boorishly expressed anger about a white neighbor interfering in her disagreement with CNN. Her words were racially charged, puerile, and ugly, but also were protected.” Further, the court noted that “although CNN reported being ‘nervous’ later in the” incident, the trial “court did not find and the evidence does not support that her nervousness derived from SEB’s comment. Rather, it was CNN’s reaction to SEB and her family yelling at her and [her husband] while they spoke to the police. As an afterthought at trial, CNN described being ‘fearful about what happened on that date.’ Even so, CNN did not clarify what made her fearful. CNN did testify that SEB made threatening motions toward her during this encounter. She described that SEB summoned her nephew, who arrived on the scene making threats. These allegations might have supported a finding of ‘harassment’ as defined by MCL 750.411h. But the” trial court’s ruling indicated it “did not consider these actions in entering the PPO. On remand, [it] may consider whether evidence other than SEB’s comment supports CNN’s petition.”