The Disagreeable
Stalker
A Kanab City Council meeting was held at the City Library
last year to hear comments on a water service agreement with Red Sands LLC, the
mining company was looking to extract sand from nearby state lands to be
shipped to northeastern Utah oil fields for hydraulic fracking operations. The
topic was obviously controversial for many in attendance. At the back of the line waiting a turn to speak were William James owner of Dreamland Safari Tours, and former
Utah State Rep. Mike Noel, the head of Kane County Water Conservancy District
and supporter of the project. The two were fighting over who was going to be the last in
line to speak [1].
The argument became heated as they exchanged words
with Noel shouting that James was, “a worthless piece of garbage” [2]. City
police officer Clinton Brinkerhoff interrupted their argument and ask that they
both leave the building. Noel left but
James chose to stay and was booked for “intentionally being a nuisance” and after
paying $1,030 in bail money was released the next day [1].
Mike Noel decided to obtain a stalking protective
order after the dispute. Under Utah
§ 78B-7-701 Ex parte (for the benefit of one party) civil stalking
injunction, an alleged stalker must engage in such conduct as “acts in which
the actor follows, monitors, observes, photographs, surveils, threatens, or
communicates to or about a person, or interferes with a person’s property” on
at least two occasions. Noel was able to obtain the injunction based on the behavior demonstrated by James at the City Council Meeting where he was
arrested for being disorderly, and his disagreeing tone at a prior meeting. [2].
Noel commented, “I’m fine. I can handle myself
with Will, but I am worried about my wife and her family. That’s why we did it.
It’s a simple matter to just stay away from us, stay off my property.” There is
no evidence that James had any contact with Noel’s wife or property. “I
feel threatened by Mr. James because of his volatile temper, his use of
alcohol, and his aggressive, abusive behavior toward public officials that he
disagrees with [2].”
Legal fees are not a financial issue for Noel as the Kane
County Water Conservancy District will contribute more than 10,000 towards his legal fees, determining it was a result of conducting district business; James has set up a GoFundMe page in order to raise money to cover his
continued legal fight [2].”
James wants to be clear, “When you boil
it all down, I laughed at him and I returned play in a childish game. He
started the game but I did return play, so those are my faults,” James said. “I
laughed at a guy in a meeting, I played a
childish game of who’s going to speak last at the next meeting. [2]”
In court, James' lawyer Mary Corporon argued that her client
shouldn’t be punished for his civic engagement.
“There is no form of speech more highly protected than political speech.
That is how our whole government is supposed to work, and people are supposed
to be able to approach their public officials at all levels of government and
are supposed to be able to call them out and say, even in very stark and
insulting terms, that what the public official is proposing is a bad idea, and
so if the conduct here is in fact a violation of the [stalking] statute ...
it’s unconstitutional to restrict that kind of public speech [2].”
Question: Many
states have enacted stalking statutes, primarily to address domestic disputes
where one spouse has physically harmed or threatened another. Should stalking
injunctions be used only where the stalker has engaged in or threatened
physical violence? What is your reasoning?
[2] https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2020/11/15/ex-lawmaker-mike-noel/
I do not think that the injunction should only apply to those threatened or involved in physical violence. There is a real element of fear for stalking victims, with or without the threat of violence.
ReplyDeleteStalking victims’ fears have consequences that affect their lives, even if there has not been a threat of physical violence. For example, the Bureau of Justice reported that more than half of stalking victims lost five or more days from work. (https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=973).
There should be recourse for being spied on, followed, receiving unwanted explicit text, etc., which naturally would introduce safety fears.
As someone who has seen a lot of stalking injunction appeals, I find it hard to pick one side or the other when it comes to how liberally stalking injunctions should be applied. In some circumstances, an injunction can be used to protect someone from an obvious threat; in others, it almost appears to be a tactic to manipulate or harass someone by using the court system. It's hard to know what would be best, but I agree with Missy that there really is an element of fear for stalking victims. Intimidation without actual violence is quite common and someone who is facing threatening behavior without the clear, vocalized threats or violence should be able to be protected from it.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't mind, I am going to answer this from a personal experience. I have a coupe of employees that have been stalked and know the impact it can have. I will tell you about one of them. She was going through a divorce and her soon to be ex was providing lot of intimidation. He would leave mark that she knew to be his on her can or things by where she parked to let her know he had been there. He parked outside of our office in the parking lot until the security guards started looking for him. He then moved to the street and they would park along road he knew she would be driving like the road to the kids’ school. He never said he was going to do anything; he never said he was going to hurt her or the children however she was terrified and could not sleep. She could not focus at work and stopped going anywhere alone. She made sure she was never late to school to get her kids and started carrying a gun in her purse. To answer your question “Should stalking injunctions be used only where the stalker has engaged in or threatened physical violence? “. No, there are concerns just based on the behavior that shows an obsession with the person. There is no harm done in an order that requires two people to avoid each there it is a big world. In your Moab example no freedom of speech is lost and I am sure the city council could accommodate his desire to speak by scheduling the public comment times to avoid any contact.
ReplyDeleteMarlowe here....Phillip Marlowe, the great (fictional—thank you, Raymond Chandler!) detective. For some reason, I can’t log in, so I hope this works. Like John, I’d like to answer from personal experience. After the Oklahoma City bombing, I felt the need to become more involved in the community so I got a part-time job as a dispatcher for the Layton, Utah police and fire departments. Many times in the 7 years I dispatched I saw situations just like John described. Several times the situation escalated to physical violence, and, once, to murder. The best way to keep a situation from escalating, whether it’s a forest fire or potential violence, is to stop it early. One person with an ax can stop a forest fire if they catch it early enough, and one stalking injunction, granted and enforced, can stop a murder. I will never forget seeing the pictures of that Layton murder scene—the perpetrator had shot his ex four times in the back as she was fleeing from the kitchen into the dining room, then turned the gun upon himself. Two children were upstairs. It was a brutal scene. There was a stalking injunction in place because the guy kept driving by and parking on the street in front of his ex’s house. He continued to do so after the injunction, but the lady never called the police to report the violations. With a stalking injunction, in my view to err on the side of caution is the way to go. The consequence are too high for it to be otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post and crazy story! In response to your question, no I do not think that stalking injunctions should be limited to situations where the stalker has engaged in or threatened physical violence. Although, threats of physical violence certainly justify a stalking injunction, there are many actions that can also create a sense of intimidation and fear, but may not explicitly qualify as a threat of physical violence. In my opinion, stalking injunctions should be determined on a case by case basis, because situations that may not meet the physical threat guidelines may warrant a stalking injunction but without having some type of general guideline in place for stalking injunctions, there is also a potential for people to “frequent file” or take advantage of the available resources.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this post and the comments in regards to the questions and post. I agree that stalking injunctions are not only used for physical violence or threats, but can be based on behavior. I do think that there is potential to use the stalking injunctions perhaps to take advantage of the system, but I think that we do have to take each potential case seriously because we don't want to not take it seriously and some gets hurt or loses their life no matter if the person has file multiple injunctions. And I mean, if someone is filing multiple stalling injunctions or something, it could be a possibility to have a health check and see if it is really a sincere stalking situation for an injunction or if the person has a mental health issue. Those are just my thoughts thinking about all the possibilities, but I do believe that we do need to assess the situation by a case to case basis.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think stalking injunctions should be limited to threats of or actual violence. Perpetrators can stalk and harm psychologically by haunting, pranking, agitating, scaring – there are, unfortunately, many ways to stalk.
ReplyDeleteAnd the state criminal code attempts to encompass the many particulars of stalking, and what it means and how it’s applied by the stalker and experienced by the stalkee. Word for word, William James could have been stalking Mike Noel. Yet did he cause distress, intend to cause distress, and knowingly cause distress, in a targeted way?
See this: Stalking -- Definitions -- Injunction -- Penalties -- Duties of law enforcement officer.
Utah § 76-5-106.5
(2) A person is guilty of stalking who intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person and knows or should know that the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person:
(a) to fear for the person's own safety or the safety of a third person; or
(b) to suffer other emotional distress
To me it seems James’ intention is to stop the sand mines and likely has had a few rows with Noel. Is James a mean drunk? Does Noel have a few favors with the sheriff? I don’t know because I haven’t seen the evidence.
Of course, stalking injunctions and restraining orders are crucial. They don’t always work, and a piece of paper won’t stop a spurned lover from some maniacal act if s/he is set on it. In this case, though, it will probably help simmer down some fiery conflicts over big issues in that small town. I worry that two people working for opposite results who already are in conflict and aren’t civil to each other is the bar for issuing a stalking injunction, with resultant diminished civic engagement (read: public meetings attendance). That would be bad. And I imagine unintended encounters at the gas station or grocery store might be awkward …