House gives OK to changes in harassment laws deemed unconstitutional

In November 2019, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that portions of Minnesota’s harassment statute were unconstitutional because they prohibit some speech protected by the First Amendment.

HF4137, passed 131-3 by the House Tuesday, would make several changes to remove the court’s free speech objections.

Rep. Dave Pinto (DFL-St. Paul) sponsors the bill that now goes to the Senate, where Sen. Jerry Relph (R-St. Cloud) is the sponsor.

The court’s decision, plus a subsequent decision by the state Court of Appeals, severely limits the ability of the state to successfully prosecute crimes of harassment, and possibly put the entire harassment statute in jeopardy, said Pinto.

“It should go without saying, that for all of us, this is scary stuff,” Pinto said. “We need to have a way to hold harassers and stalkers accountable.”

Another major concern raised by the Supreme Court decision was that current law does not require proof of specific intent in a person in order for their actions to meet the legal definition of harassment. Therefore, according to the court, existing law has the potential to criminalize negligent conduct. The bill would add a requirement of intent in order for a person’s actions to be considered criminal harassment.

Finally, in the Minnesota Supreme Court decision, justices expressed concern that the threshold for an action to be considered harassment was too low. The bill would raise those thresholds, adding that in order to be criminal harassment, an action must cause a “reasonable fear of substantial bodily harm” in another person, or “would reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress” in another person.