Court Upholds Injunction Against Signs Reporting Neighbor’s Son Committed Sex Crime Against Homeowner’s Daughter
From Cambronne v. Chapp, decided yesterday by the Minnesota Court of Appeals (Judge Carol Hooten, joined by Judge Jeffrey Bryan); note that it’s not clear what the exact nature of the criminal sexual conduct charge was, which is why I’m being vague about it:
Appellant Jake Chapp lives across the street from the residence of respondent Jamie Cambronne. On June 1, 2022, Cambronne’s son pleaded guilty to a criminal-sexual-conduct charge involving Chapp’s daughter. According to Cambronne, her son has not lived at the family’s residence since February 2022.
On July 5, 2022, Chapp put up a sign, visible from the road and aimed at Cambronne’s property, which stated, “How would you feel if your child was RAPED by the neighbor and his parents blame you for his conviction?” … On July 13, Chapp put up a second sign next to the first sign, which stated, “Honk if you agree: Rape is wrong.” These signs both faced Cambronne’s residence and were illuminated at night.
Cambronne sought a Harassment Restraining Order, which the court granted, for two years:
The district court determined that Chapp’s signs “were harassing in nature” and that “it’s clear from the wording and the placement of the signs that the intent was at least in part to harass the Cambronnes ….” …
The district court found “reasonable grounds to believe that [Chapp] engaged in harassment” based on the following: Chapp “displayed signs visible from [the] roadway and [Cambronne’s] home encouraging passersby to honk their vehicle horns. These signs were lighted and visible at night.” {The district court acknowledged that Chapp had a “First Amendment right to free speech” but concluded that “the tenor of this speech here was specifically designed … with an intent to harass.”} …
The district court issued an HRO prohibiting Chapp from harassing Cambronne, having direct or indirect contact with Cambronne and her minor children, and being on Cambronne’s property. The HRO does not provide for specific restrictions on Chapp’s use of signage or clearly identify the aspects of Chapp’s signs that constituted harassment; it states only that “[t]here are reasonable grounds to believe [Chapp] has engaged in harassment” because he “displayed signs visible from roadway and [Cambronne’s] home encouraging passersby to honk their vehicle horns” that were “lighted and visible at night.”
The court held that Chapp’s signs were indeed “harassment” under Minnesota law:
A district court may grant an HRO if it “finds at the hearing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that [a person] has engaged in harassment.” “Harassment” is defined, in relevant part, as “repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestu
Article from Reason.com
