Court Upholds Anti-Stalking Injunction Stemming from Public Pressure Campaign Over Allegedly Wrongly Withheld Cat
From the N.H. Supreme Court Thursday in D.V. v. R.G. (see also the newspaper coverage of the initial controversy; court records reflect that the parties are Valente v. Garcia):
The plaintiff owns a business near an apartment building in Manchester where the defendant lives. In June 2024, the defendant let her cat outside. The cat was apparently sick and dying. On the same day, the plaintiff’s daughter found a cat on the plaintiff’s property that appeared to be in poor health. The plaintiff took the cat in and spent several thousand dollars on veterinary care. [Note that defendant argues, in her appellate brief that the cat was “an indoor-outdoor cat who would wander the neighborhood”; she had taken the cat to the vet, who told her that the cat “may die in the upcoming weeks”; she brought the cat “home so he would live his last days with his family”; and she let the cat continue his daily routine, including his outside time, “because at the time, he was not in distress.” -EV]
On Friday, June 28, the plaintiff learned that the defendant had lost a cat and went to the defendant’s apartment to inquire whether the cat belonged to the defendant. Although the parties dispute what the plaintiff said or promised during that meeting, there is no dispute that, by the end of the day, the plaintiff refused to return the cat to the defendant. According to the plaintiff, she was concerned that, if the cat were the defendant’s cat, the defendant had abused or neglected it. The plaintiff communicated to the defendant that she planned to consult with Manchester Animal Control when it opened the following Monday morning.
By Saturday, the defendant had made claims on social media that the plaintiff and her daughter had stolen her cat. [More facts below. -EV] The defendant also organized a protest outside the plaintiff’s business. [Again, more facts below. -EV] … On Tuesday, when the plaintiff’s daughter brought the cat, at the suggestion of the police, to the animal shelter, the cat had died. The defendant then claimed on social media that the plaintiff had killed the cat….
New Hampshire law allows courts to issue anti-stalking orders of protection, aimed at stopping defendants from
- “[p]urposely, knowingly, or recklessly engag[ing] in a course of conduct”—defined to include at least two acts of communication—
- “targeted at a specific person”
- “which would cause a reasonable person to fear” for the person’s or family members’ safety
- when such fear has indeed been caused.
Plaintiff sought such an order, and the trial court issued it, banning defendant from “further acts of stalking”—which presumably forbade the defendant from repeating the behavior that she engaged in—and specifically banning defendant “from posting about Plaintiff and her business on any public social media accounts.” The trial court reasoned (see pp. 22-23 of this PDF):
The Defendant recklessly engaged in a course of conduct targeted at Plaintiff when, on June 29, 2024 Defendant posted. “Your karma is going to come at you ten fold. Give him back like you said you would.” On June 30, 2024, Defendant posted on public social media accounts the name of Plaintiff, her daughter, and the name of Plaintiff’s business, along with information Defendant could reasonably foresee would, and did, inflame public outrage directed at Plaintiff. When individuals posted threatening statements in response to Defendant’s original post. statements such as “Shawty take ya gun n go get ya fucking cat who tf these ppl think they are” and “Go take her daughter[.]”
Defendant expressed approval of these posts suggesting violence against Plaintiff and her daughter. Defendant’s approval is evidenced by the Defendant’s social media profile picture and a red heart on each post. Defendant weaponized public social media accounts against Plaintiff, which caused Plaintiff to reasonably fear for her and her family member’s safety.
Defendant did this by repeatedly making posts with no legitimate purpose other than to inflame the public against Plaintiff and her business. “For a Defendant New Hampshire’s stalking statute exempts only constitutionally protected conduct and conduct ‘that was necessary to accomplish a legitimate purpose independent of making contact with the targeted person. RSA 633:3-a, II(a).[‘] Pursuant to RSA 633:3-a, IV, the defendant has the burden to show that his conduct was necessary to accomplish a legitimate purpose.” Miller v. Blackden, 154 N.H. 448, 452 {2006). Defendant failed to satisfy her burden of proof to show that her conduct was necessary to accomplish a legitimate purpose.
Defendant’s posts repeatedly, with the knowledge of Defendant, elicited statements of violence directed at Plaintiff such as, “I hope your shop burns down you racist ass bitch” and “Should’ve been your worthless carcass they found in the streets, Debbie. Fucking, disgusting, worthless, racist cat killer”. “You should find a rope and hang yourself with it already”. and “Disgusting ugly cunt karma is coming for you. And the fucking law. You evil bitch. I hope you die screa
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
