Sufficient evidence to support a PPO; “Stalking”; MCL 750.411h, 750.411h(1)(d), & 750.441i; “Posting a message through the use of any medium of communication”; 750.411s; Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN)

The court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the PPO and therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to terminate it. Thus, it reversed the trial court’s order denying respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO, vacated the PPO, and remanded with an instruction that the “PPO should be updated in LEIN as rescinded . . . .” Petitioner obtained an ex parte PPO against her father, respondent. The evidence reflected “that petitioner initiated contact with respondent twice in June, but respondent did not respond in any manner.” While the testimony reflected “that respondent contacted petitioner via e-mail after receiving an unsolicited letter from petitioner’s husband, the e-mail was insufficient to constitute ‘stalking’ as defined under MCL 750.411h and MCL 750.411i. In fact, after petitioner received the e-mail, her husband called respondent and invited him to petitioner’s home.” Following the phone “conversation, respondent sent another e-mail to petitioner. But the trial court did not make any factual findings that respondent’s conduct constituted stalking.” And it was undisputed that he “did not post ‘a message through the use of any medium of communication . . . pursuant to MCL 750.411s.’” Because there was insufficient evidence his conduct constituted stalking, the court found “that the trial court’s refusal to terminate the PPO fell outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.”