Summary of Hayes v. Penkoski, a recent case from the Oklahoma Supreme Court, written by Justice Darby:
In this case, the Court examined whether the Defendant, Richard Penkoski, had harassed or stalked the Petitioners, Sheena Hayes and Morgan Lawrence-Hayes, as required for a protective order to be issued. The Court concluded that because Penkoski did not target any specific individual, as mandated by the statute for a protection order, the request was denied.
The parties involved are all public figures, with Penkoski being a pastor and activist, and the Petitioners holding leadership roles in Oklahomans for Equality and Disciples Christian Church. The incidents in question occurred between September and November 2022.
Penkoski posted on Facebook, criticizing Disciples Christian Church and its involvement in Pride Month. He also attended a Pride event in Bartlesville, where he protested near children’s activities but did not interact directly with the Petitioners. Subsequent posts on social media targeted the Petitioners, but did not mention them by name or directly engage with them.
After a series of online posts, the Petitioners sought a protective order, citing the alleged harassment and threats made by Penkoski. The Court ultimately determined that the actions did not meet the legal threshold for issuing a protective order.
At the November City Council meeting, he used bible verses to justify harming or killing the LGBT community. He later posted a video calling the speaker a liar, despite having no prior contact with them. Mr. Penkoski has targeted the family with violent threats on social media and is attending meetings in a town where he does not reside.
A police report attached to the petition cited Penkoski for making obscene and threatening phone calls, specifically targeting individuals associated with Oklahomans for Equality. The report detailed his behavior at a pride event, where he made offensive statements and threats towards members of the community. Penkoski’s online posts also included personal attacks and threats against specific individuals, leading to the issuance of an emergency protective order.
Despite the district court’s decision to grant a permanent protection order, the Oklahoma Supreme Court overturned it, finding that Penkoski’s actions did not constitute stalking as defined by the law. Justice Gurich dissented, arguing that Penkoski’s behavior was indeed targeted towards specific individuals within the LGBTQ community and their allies, not just the organizations they were affiliated with. As leaders in the LBGTQ-plus community, Appellees were targeted by Penkoski’s harassment and intimidation due to their prominent positions in the mentioned organizations. The incidents included social media posts, public accusations, unauthorized use of personal images, and physical confrontations. These actions were deemed as a course of conduct meant to intimidate and potentially incite violence towards Appellees. The trial court’s decision to classify Penkoski’s behavior as stalking was supported by evidence and not an abuse of discretion. The dissent raised concerns about First Amendment issues that would need to be addressed if the court affirmed the stalking finding. Justices Kauger, Edmondson, and Combs also expressed partial dissent without elaboration. Joe M. Fears and Richard D. White from Barber & Bartz represent Penkoski in this case.
Source link
