Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:56:49 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Anthony,
I did a little bit of research while I was procrastinating today, and
it seems like your friend's husband's claim would be really unlikely
to succeed. Here's the statute that governs restraining orders in
North Dakota (12.1-31.2-01 of the Criminal Code):
"1. "Disorderly conduct" means intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or
gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security,
or privacy of another person. Disorderly conduct does not include
constitutionally protected activity.
2. A person who is a victim of disorderly conduct or the parent or
guardian of a minor who is a victim of disorderly conduct may seek a
disorderly conduct restraining order from any court of competent
jurisdiction in the manner provided in this section."
According to a case called Tibor v. Lund (1999), "merely showing that
a person's actions are "unwanted" is not sufficient to support a
restraining order; the petitioner must show specific unwanted acts
that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security or privacy
of another person."
Basically, this means that the fact that he didn't want the attendant
there wouldn't be good enough to get a restraining order. He would
have to prove that she was acting with intent to affect his safety,
security, or privacy, which she wasn't.
Does that help? I'd be happy to do more research if you want/need me to.
~Joy~
|
|
|