may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996)
Frangena Shannon, petitioner,
Ramsey County District Court
File No. C7-97-100276
James C. Selmer, Michael L. Diggs, James Selmer & Associates, P.A., 2120 Dain Bosworth Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Amundson, Presiding Judge, Crippen, Judge, and
Appellant Buddy Ramoo challenges the district court's issuance of a harassment restraining order. We affirm.
Ramoo argues the district court erred in granting the restraining order because there is insufficient evidence of intent, the findings on specific conduct are erroneous, and the conduct, if it occurred, does not constitute harassment.
A district court may issue a harassment restraining order when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has engaged in harassment. Minn. Stat. § 609.748 (1996). Harassment is
repeated, intrusive, or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another * * *.
Id. We hold the district court did not err.
Shannon testified about repeated inappropriate intentional conduct by Ramoo, including touching, shouting, and intrusive behavior. This testimony was corroborated by other witnesses. Shannon also testified that Ramoo "inappropriately [took] things from me on my person" and demonstrated for the court how Ramoo "just puts his hand in my pocket" to obtain a pen or a tool.
Based on the record, we conclude the district court could reasonably conclude Ramoo intended to harass Shannon and its findings are supported by the evidence.
[ ]1 Ramoo incorrectly asserts that 1996 Minn. Laws ch. 365 precludes district court review of harassment restraining orders issued under Minn Stat. § 609.748. Chapter 365 applies to "family, probate, and juvenile court matters, other than delinquency proceedings." This case is not within the purview of Chapter 365.