50 Year Extension of OFP Survives Constitutional Challenges in Court of Appeals But Under Review in Supreme Court

In the Matter of:  Vanessa Yoland Rew vs. Bergstrom, Minn.Ct.App., 12/27/2011, review granted, 3/12/12.  Ms. Rew obtained several orders for protection against Mr. Bergstrom as a result of his rather continuous –when he wasn’t in jail or prison – acts against her.  In July 2010, Ms. Rew asked that the current OFP be extended for 50 years, based on Mr. Bergstrom’s chronic bad behavior going back some thirteen years.  Up to this point Mr. Bergstrom had more or less agreed to the issuance and (sometimes) the modest extension of previous OFP’s, but he thought this went too far.  The trial court, however, granted the request and prohibited him from:

(1) committing acts of domestic abuse against respondent or the children; (2) having contact, either direct or indirect, with respondent or the children, “whether in person, with or through other persons, by telephone, letter, electronic means, or in any other way,” except according to the conditions for establishing parenting time; (3) coming within 120 yards of respondent’s residence, place of work, or church; (4) coming within 120 yards of the children’s school or childcare location; (5) coming within 50 yards of respondent or the children in public places; or (6) possessing, shipping, or transporting any firearm.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has accepted review of the case so for now here are the questions that the court of appeals addressed along the path of upholding the fifty year OFP:

1. Was the issuance of a 50-year OFP extension a violation of appellant’s First Amendment right to free speech?

2. Was the issuance of a 50-year OFP extension a violation of appellant’s due process rights?

3. Does the issuance of a 50-year OFP extension based on appellant’s prior OFP violations constitute double jeopardy?

4. Is Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6a(b), an unconstitutional ex post facto law when the extension is based on OFP violations that predated enactment of the 50-year extension provision?

5. Did the district court err in ruling that Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6a(b), does not require a showing of abuse?