Opinion ID: 772012
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 1 On January 1, 1993, the Michigan Legislature enacted a comprehensive stalking law, Mich. Comp. Laws 750.411h (Stalking) and 750.411i (Aggravated Stalking) 1 . The law defines stalking as a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.411i(e). Harassment is defined as conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Id. § 750.411i(d). Expressly excluded from the definition of harassment is constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose. Id 2 . 2 On habeas review the district court ruled that the aggravating stalking statute was unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment because the exclusions for constitutionally protected activity and conduct that serves a legitimate purpose are so limited that the scope of conduct covered by the statute applied to core First Amendment conduct. The court therefore granted Petitioner Jerry Lee Staley's petition for writ of habeas corpus on July14, 2000 3 . 3 The matter is now before us on the expedited appeal of Respondent Warden Kurt Jones (Respondent). Michigan State Senator Dianne Byrum, The Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, The Michigan Sheriffs' Association, and The National Organization for Women, Michigan Conference have filed a joint brief supporting Respondent's position. The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, along with the Michigan Domestic Violence Prevention and Treatment Board have also filed a joint amicus brief supporting Respondent's view.