Sending emails to someone at his or her place of employment—even a whole bunch of them—doesn’t constitute “stalking” according to a July 14 ruling by a New York judge.
The ruling was reported Monday on the blog of attorney Oscar Michelen, who successfully represented writer, legal reform advocate, and entrepreneur Matthew Chan before the Georgia Supreme Court last year in his appeal of a draconian protection order (verdict returned March 27, 2015). It also concerned digital speech. Mr. Chan’s remarks weren’t transmitted to anyone; they were merely published online. But some common ground exists between the cases, in particular the question of what substantiates an allegation of “threat.”
Mr. Michelen summarizes the New York case (People v. Marian) thus:
The defendant sent over 200 different forms of communication including many emails to her former girlfriend’s work email address. She was then arrested and charged with three stalking misdemeanors.
Significantly, the judge ruled that “a section of the NY Stalking Law requiring that the stalking conduct occur at the complainant’s ‘place of business or employment’ is not satisfied by the sending of repeated emails [to] the complainant’s business email address.”
The gist of the quibble, as Mr. Michelen explains, was that the electronic “space” occupied by email isn’t a real one; email isn’t sent to a “place,” nor must someone be at their “place of business or employment” to receive email. Email can’t be considered “stalking conduct” as defined by the referenced New York statute, because it doesn’t “occur” anywhere definite.
Also significant, as Mr. Michelen points out, is that the ruling places a check on prosecutorial encroachments that seek to broaden the definition of stalking “so that fear of physical injury is not necessary.”
The emails weren’t threatening. According to Judge Steven M. Statsinger’s ruling: “Between January and April of 2015, defendant bombarded the complainant with text messages, Instagram messages, and emails, both to the complainant’s personal and work email addresses, all asserting her desire to be with the complainant.”
The female defendant was still found guilty of two additional counts of stalking her ex-girlfriend under different sections of New York’s criminal code based on alleged conduct that was physically confrontational.
As Mr. Michelen concludes, however:
The distinction could be important to prosecutors and defense counsel in cases where there was no fear of imminent physical injury and the work emails had some stated legitimate purpose as that behavior would not meet the language of any other part of the stalking law. The case also serves as an example of how law is shaped and made by litigators fighting over the definition and application of terms and phrases in the statutes. I am sure that this was not the first time anyone was charged for similar conduct under the same statute; it was just the first time anyone challenged it.
Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
New York judges have spanked their wacky legislators in Albany several times. Two more cases worth reading, especially the opinion of Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman in People v Raphael Golb, are:
People v Golb and People v Marwan M. The judges have spoken: No one in New York has the right not to be annoyed, at least by messages posted on the internet.
LikeLike
So as I did email ? after ? told me to stop last May do you think it would be even a good idea to bring this up? As crazy as ? was, it did not make any sense telling me he was deeply in love with me one minute and then telling me to stay away from him only two days later. I did try to email him again a few more times but then did stop. Nothing about it made any sense to me as ? was so desperate to be with me and Sam for almost six months…so you can see, I don’t know if the judge will think ? made any sense either, and why after the first injunction was dropped many months later that I might be confused and wonder how ? was doing and if ? really intended to drop me on a permanent basis or if ? still genuinely cared about me and that the latter was true…In February,,,I went sort of nuts by emailing him several times and found that ? had blocked me so I stopped. three days later a constable came to my door with the injunction papers that were subsequently upheld. A day after the blocked emails happened I did call ? and ? answered the phone said, “hello.” and I told ? how I felt. about what had happened, that I was sad and confused and depressed and just did not understand why he had dropped me for almost a whole year…? didn’t say one word, no response and I hung up without ? saying not to call not to write not to do anything….two days later the constable was at my door while I was in the hospital with an injunction order.
LikeLike
The first time he filed an order he told a friend to tell me that if we came to his business or if even my son did he would file an injunction. My son went up to see him at his store and he is over 25 so I said okay but he is meshuggah, he filed an injunction on both of us even though I had stopped trying to contact him in any way at that time. The JP in the Justice Court looked at me and took me aside and said, “you know how this is going to go if it goes to a full hearing don’t you?” and convinced both of us to withdraw it.The second time, this past February, after having received no response from him at ALL ,either one of us when we emailed him and finally having had the several emails bounced back to me as though he had never received them when all I was doing was trying to see how he was doing, knowing he was crazy and missing him and not understanding when out of the blue he completely dropped out of my life for no reason after telling me how much in love with me he was, and I did stop by the way, which was so confusing and heartbreaking that he seemed to hate me when he had told me how deeply in love with me he was, I stopped, ended up in the hospital for depression and while I was in the hospital my son told me that the constable had come by with another order of protection against me…no warning no nothing, and I simply stopped trying to email him and went into a serious depression. You asked me why he would do that..I had not a clue as to why he had told me for nearly a year how desperately in love with me he was..I was just trying to find out why he was doing that and concerned and worried about and for him and others as to my knowledge he was still hearing command hallucinations telling him to kill others or maybe even himself…beyond that I still have no knowledge. When I was in court in March trying to file an OFP on him he seemed confuses as to why he was there and why I wouldn’t talk to him and theJO had to tell him four times to stop trying to talk to me and to watch his body language as I could go to JAIL if he contacted me..he seemed to have no memory of the fact that he had filed an injunction against me and we were no longer lovers….it has been the craziest year of my entire life…I couldn’t understand why I couldn’t file an OFP on him even though I was trying to get HIS IAH against ME dropped. It made no sense and still doesn’t…my understanding is that I could still have filed an OFP on him as the one he filed against me would not protect me only him and I could get arrested…..
LikeLike
So Michael told me to stay away last May. Which I did. However nine mojths later I emailed him again because I was worried and confused ad concered about hum. However the emails were bounced back to me and and I did stop. Would that count? In those nine mobths he filed an ijunction that was dropped by the JO. Two months later my son emailed him a few times and in a four month period of time I emailed him some prayers threes times. Finally I February I emailed him four tomes in one day because there was no response and the emails were bounced back to me as though he had never received them. I knew he was paranoid and possibly dangerous so that is why I periodically emailed him hoping he would snap out ot it and become the man I knew who had loved me and dropped me without cause…f
LikeLike
He was supposed to have informed you of his intent to file in February before he filed. Forget about May. See the recent series of comments about the law I posted to you.
LikeLike
Woe! That is precedent setting! I might even be able to use this one! I sent four emails that were no threat. Michael didnt express fear and this was a stare appellate court. Perhaps law is beginning to swing back. I was NEVER in Muchaels store or home…I will use the stuff I mentioned to you primarily but WOW! Thanks so much…
LikeLike
Yeah, and this was what was supposed to be scary:
Everything about judicial procedure in these cases is an outrage to the intellect. Read these details, and you find out the only violence was from the “complainant.” Also, how does some judge know the complainant was actually “in fear” or what “caused” it?
Right…because the complainant said so.
LikeLike
Here are some details from this case that apply to yours, Martha:
What the judge is saying here (and this, I believe applies in Arizona, too) is that a complainant (like Michael) must indicate that emails (like yours) were “unsolicited” and that the sender of the emails was clearly told to stop.
That’s why I asked you before whether you were explicitly told not to email.
LikeLike
See?
LikeLike