A big surprise from the courts today؟ The courts have determined that no contact means no contact – no matter who initiates the contact.
A11-1795 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Aaron Bobby Phipps, Appellant.
Stearns County District Court, Hon. Judge Mary B. Mahler.
When determining whether an order for protection is unconstitutionally vague, a court should apply the void-for-vagueness doctrine that applies to the determination whether a statute is unconstitutionally vague.
An order for protection providing that there must be “no contact” between the petitioner and the respondent is not unconstitutionally vague. Such an order prohibits the respondent from engaging in contact with the petitioner even if the petitioner first contacts the respondent.
Affirmed. Chief Judge Matthew E. Johnson.
By: Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533