Derik John Grittner, et al., Respondents,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-1991

Derik John Grittner, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Mark Steven Buhr,
Appellant.

Filed September 8, 2020
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Stearns County District Court
File No. 73-CV-19-4818

Derik Grittner, Sartell, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Michelle Grittner, Sartell, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Jonathan D. Wolf, Rinke Noonan, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Florey, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
Appellant Mark Steven Buhr challenges th e district court’s decision to grant a
harassment restraining order (HRO) against him in favor of respondents Derik John

2
Grittner and Michelle Grittner and their minor children.1 Mr. Buhr argues that (1) none of
his conduct was related to Mr. Grittner or the Grittners’ minor children, (2) he never
communicated to the Grittners th e information used in part as a basis for the HRO, and
(3) the temporary ex parte HRO that the district court found that he violated (conduct that
the district court relied on in part in granting the HRO) was overbroad. We affirm.
FACTS2
Mr. Buhr and Ms. Grittner work together at a medical center in St. Cloud. Before
the incidents in this case, their relationship wa s friendly, as reflected in the large number
of personal messages and pictures the two shared over social media. But Mr. Buhr
escalated his attentions in a manner that made Ms. Grittner uncomfortable, including by
purchasing her a spa gift certif icate for Mother’s Day. On Ju ne 7, 2019, Mr. Buhr wrote
Ms. Grittner a message disclosing that he ha d romantic feelings for her. Ms. Grittner
responded that they could only be friends and that the romantic overtures needed to stop.
Mr. Buhr replied that he would never stop and that he would wait.
Within a week of Mr. Buhr’s message to Ms. Grittner about his romantic feelings
for her, Mr. Buhr’s wife found the messages be tween the two on the Buhr family’s tablet
computers. Ms. Buhr found photos of Ms. Grittner and believed they were evidence of an
affair. Ms. Buhr also looked at Mr. Buhr’s internet history and found that he had made

1 The Grittners have not filed a brief on appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03 (noting
that, if a respondent fails to file a brief, this court will decide the appeal on the merits).

2 The facts of this case come from testimony taken at a hearing on two HRO petitions. The
Grittners brought the first petition and Jantel aa Buhr, Mr. Buhr’s spouse at the time,
brought the second.

3
multiple searches related to firearms and gun shows and had watc hed multiple videos on
explosives.
While examining the tablets, Ms. Buhr found a document of Mr. Buhr’s with a list
of phrases (planning document). The planning document begins with a six-digit number.3
Beneath that number is the Grittners’ home a ddress. Beneath the Grittners’ address, the
planning document has the following bulleted entries:
- R at show
- Practice
- Follow to land, eval
- Execute

There is a gap and then another list:
- Cloths
- Car
- Shoes

On June 14, Ms. Buhr contacted Mr. Grittn er and showed him the contents of the
tablets. Though Mr. Grittner had never met Mr. Buhr, he and Ms. Grittner soon petitioned
the district court on behalf of themselves and their minor childr en for a HRO against
Mr. Buhr. The district court granted an ex parte HRO, which required Mr. Buhr to have no
contact with the Grittners or their children, to stay at least 1,000 feet away from the
Grittners’ house, and to stay at least 250 feet away from Ms. Grittner at their place of work.
An evidentiary hearing on the HRO pe tition took place on October 14, 2019.
Ms. Buhr and Mr. Grittner both testified that they thought Mr. Buhr’s search history and

3 The same six-digit number also appears near the top of another document found on the
computers. Mr. Buhr had used this second document to draft the message to Ms. Grittner
disclosing his romantic feelings for her.

4
planning document showed that he planne d to do violence, which frightened them.
Mr. Grittner testified that he believed the six- digit number referred to Mr. Buhr’s birth
year, a number related to Ms. Grittner, and a number related to the Grittner children.
Mr. Grittner also testified that he (Mr. Grittner) was a hunter and that the fact that Mr. Buhr
had searched for gun shows made him nervous that Mr. Buhr was seeking to obtain a gun
with a limited paper trail.
Ms. Grittner testified that, after seeing the contents of the tablets, she was
“dumbfounded” and “shocked, scared.” She stated that she did not give Mr. Buhr
permission to take the photos, which included multiple images of her walking to her car to
leave work.
Mr. Buhr offered alternative explanations fo r the contents of the tablets. He stated
that he had been speaking with a friend who had previously gone through a divorce and
that the two had talked about hunting. He claimed that the searches about firearms were an
attempt “to get educated” on what would be necessary to go hunting. He explained that the
videos he viewed on “explosiv es” were videos that he watched with his son about a
compound called “Tannerite” that explodes when it is shot. He testified that he learned
about Tannerite from a coworker, who testified at the he aring that she had shown him a
Tannerite video because she had used it fo r a gender-reveal party to send up colored
powder.
Finally, Mr. Buhr also offered an explan ation for the planning document, stating
that the list was some notes he made in preparation for coaching baseball. He said that the
six-digit number was a new code for his phone, based on his year of birth, an important

5
year for the Milwaukee Brewers baseball team, and his son’s birthday. He claimed that the
Grittner address was meant to be a reminder to bring doughnuts to Ms. Grittner based on
an ongoing interaction involving a patient. He said “R at show” meant “run at show,”
meaning that his baseball team, which had lost some of their bigger, stronger players,
would need to run a lot to make it to the state tournament. Mr. Buhr stated that “practice”
referred to baseball practice and that “Follow to land, eval” was supposed to be “follow to
lead to eval,” which was a reference to a change in his baseball team after many older
students graduated. “Execute” referred to executing the practice plan. “Cloths, car, shoes”
was a reminder to bring his clothes, car, and shoes to work on baseball practice days
because he left directly from work to go to practice.
Apart from the evidence relating to the information on the Buhrs’ tablets, testimony
at the evidentiary hearing es tablished that Mr. Buhr had come within 250 feet of
Ms. Grittner multiple times after the issuan ce of the ex parte HRO. Mr. Buhr and
Ms. Grittner work at a multi-building campus. After the incidents in question, their
employer granted a request by Ms. Grittner to be relocated to a nother building on the
campus. Ms. Grittner testified that on one occasion she ran into Mr. Buhr at her new
building, even though he had no reason to be there and wa s supposed to stay away.
Mr. Buhr claimed that he leaves work through the building in question and did not see her
until she came around a corner. Mr. Buhr also testified that Ms. Grittner was supposed to
be in another location, farther away. But Ms. Grittner provided an email sent to the entire
facility that had informed everyone that the team at the previous location would be working
elsewhere due to water damage.

6
Ms. Grittner also saw Mr. Buhr walk within 250 feet of her multiple times while she
was eating lunch outdoors. 4 Mr. Buhr claimed he had started a new activity of walking
during lunch as a way to relieve stress from his ongoing divorce proceedings. In response
to Mr. Buhr’s conduct, Ms. Grittner called the police multiple times to enforce the ex parte
HRO. She also stated that while Mr. Buhr came within 250 feet of her, he did not approach
her.
Ms. Grittner also testified that Mr. Buhr used the company messaging system to
publicly display messages that he knew she would likely see. The messages were status
messages on the employer’s messenger program. Mr. Buhr set his status on the program to
messages like: “Never give up. Today is hard and tomorrow may be worse but the day after
tomorrow I may find my Sunshine.”; “The two basic items necessary for life are Love and
Sunshine”; “People resist change because they focus on what they think they have to give
up instead of what they have to gain.”; “stop being afraid of what could go wrong and start
being excited about what could go right”; an d “Don’t change yourself for someone who
doesn’t appreciate the way your [sic] are. Find someone who does.” Ms. Grittner testified
that “Sunshine” was a reference to earlier conve rsations she had with Mr. Buhr in which
he called her “his ray of suns hine coming to work.” Mr. Buhr denied that he intended to
contact Ms. Grittner through these messages.

4 Ms. Grittner took pictures of Mr. Buhr walk ing by her and of the location at which she
ate lunch.

7
After the hearing on the matter, the distri ct court granted the Grittners’ requested
HRO. The district court concluded that Mr. Buhr had contacted Ms. Grittner multiple times
after she told him not to do so and had walked by her multiple times despite the ex parte
HRO. It determined that Mr. Buhr had “frightened Petitioner(s) with threatening behavior”
by asking Ms. Grittner to leav e Mr. Grittner, conducting inte rnet searches for “guns and
gun shows,” and making the planning document that included the Grittners’ home address.
Lastly, the district court concluded that Mr. Buhr had taken pictures of Ms. Grittner without
her permission.
Mr. Buhr appeals.
D E C I S I O N
An appellate court reviews the issuance of an HRO for an abuse of discretion. Kush
v. Mathison, 683 N.W.2d 841, 84 3 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept. 29,
2004). It reviews factual findings for clear error, giving due re gard to the district court’s
credibility determinations. Id. at 843-44. The issuance of an HRO will be reversed if it is
not supported by sufficient evidence. Id.
“A person who is a victim of harassmen t may seek a restraining order from the
district court . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 2 (2018). “The parent, guardian, or
stepparent of a minor who is a victim of harassment may seek a restraining order from the
district court on behalf of the minor.” 5 Id. A district court may issue a restraining order if

5 In 2020, the legislature amended this sec tion to add “conservator” to the persons who
may seek a restraining or der on behalf of minors. See S.F. 3357, 2020 Reg. Sess., art. 1,
§ 39 (Minn. 2020).

8
it has “reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in harassment.”
Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 5(b)(3) (2018).
Harassment includes “repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or
gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse
effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship between
the actor and the intended target.” Minn. St at. § 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1) (2018). “[T]he
harassment statute is ‘quasi-criminal’ and is subject to the heightened definiteness
requirement.” Dunham v. Roer, 708 N.W.2d 552, 568 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied
(Minn. Mar. 28, 2006). “[S]ection 609.748 requires both objectively unreasonable conduct
or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on the part of the
person subject to harassing conduct.” Id. at 567.
Communication of tablet information
The district court found that Mr. Buhr “frightened Petitioner(s) with threatening
behavior” based on the contents of Mr. Buhr’s search history and his planning document.
While the district court did not explicitly so state, this finding amounts to an implicit
finding that Mr. Buhr’s explanations were no t credible. Mr. Buhr does not argue that the
district court clearly erred in its factual fi nding that the searches and planning document
represented threats against the Grittners. Rathe r, he argues that the contents of the tablets
cannot constitute “intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures” with an “intended target”
because he never communicated the contents to the Grittner s. The contents were only
communicated when Ms. Buhr took the tablets and showed them to Mr. Grittner.

9
Although Mr. Buhr did not communicate th e threats to the Grittners, section
609.748 defines harassment as including “acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial
adverse effect . . . on the safety, security, or privacy of another.” (Emphasis added.) The
district court found Mr. Buhr’s searches and planning document constituted threatening
behavior that frightened the Grittners, and that this conduct, in a ddition Mr. Buhr’s other
conduct, had “a substantial adverse effect” on the Grittner’s safety, se curity, or privacy.
The plain language of the statute, even under a heightened definiteness requirement, does
not require Mr. Buhr to intend to cause the substantial adverse effect, only that his conduct
caused it and was objectively unreasonable. See Dunham, 708 N.W.2d at 567.
Mr. Buhr argues that the Grittners could not be the “intended target” of his actions
because he never sent his tablets’ contents to the Grittners. But, give n the district court’s
finding that Mr. Buhr’s conduct was threaten ing, the Grittners’ address at the top of
Mr. Buhr’s list supports the conclusion that the Grittners were th e intended targets of
Mr. Buhr’s planning. On this record, and given the district court’s implicit rejection of
Mr. Buhr’s explanations, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to determine
that Mr. Buhr’s search history and planning document supported the issuance of an HRO.
HRO with respect to Mr. Grittner and the Grittners’ minor children
In a somewhat related argument, Mr. Bu hr argues the HRO lacks support because
none of his conduct targeted Mr. Grittner or the Grittners’ children. Minnesota law defines
harassment as including “repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or
gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse

10
effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship between
the actor and the intended target.” Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1) (emphasis added).
Mr. Buhr argues that his conduct does not meet the statutory definition of
harassment with respect to Mr. Grittner and the Grittners’ children because he never “met,
nor ever attempted to communicate with, any of these people.” He argues that the statutory
language emphasized above permits courts to issue an HRO only in the context of an actor
and intended target, contrasting an HRO with an order for protection, which the law permits
only within the context of certain relationships. See Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 2(b)
(2018) (defining “Family or household members”). And, he contends, Mr. Grittner and the
Grittners’ children were not “intended targets.”
The district court found that Mr. Buhr’s internet search history and planning
document constituted threatening behavior that had a substa ntial adverse effect on the
safety and security of the Grittners. The a ddress at the top of th e planning document
supports the conclusion that Mr. Buhr’s th reatening behavior was directed towards the
entire Grittner household, not just Ms. Grittner. Even if “intended targets” are required by
the HRO statute as Mr. Buhr argues, on this r ecord, it was not clear error for the district
court to conclude that all of the Grittners, not just Ms. Grittner, were the intended targets
of Mr. Buhr’s conduct. While Mr. Buhr did not communicate the threats to the Grittners,
as discussed above, the statute defines harassm ent as including “acts, words, or gestures
that have a substantial adverse effect . . . on the safety, security, or privacy of another.”
(Emphasis added.) Mr. Buhr’s searches and planning had a substantial adverse effect on
the Grittners, even if it was Ms. Buhr who ultimately communicated his behavior to them.

11
The district court did not a buse its discretion by including Mr. Grittner and the Grittners’
children in the HRO.
Overbreadth of the ex parte HRO
Finally, Mr. Buhr argues that the initia l ex parte HRO was overbroad when it
restricted him from coming within 250 feet of Ms. Grittner at their place of work. This
point is relevant, he argues, because, in granti ng the HRO, the district court relied in part
on a factual finding that Mr. Buhr had repeat edly violated the ex parte HRO by walking
within 250 feet of Ms. Grittner.
A temporary restraining order issued befo re an HRO hearing must not be overly
broad. See Dayton Hudson Corp. v. Johnson , 528 N.W.2d 260, 263 (Minn. App. 1995)
(noting that a temporary restraining order ba sed on physical conduc t and attempted theft
was overly broad when it prevented the party from contacting the store or its employees).
We have evaluated whether a re straining order is overly broa d by weighing the victim’s
interests against the burden pl aced on the restrained party. See, e.g., Davidson v. Webb ,
535 N.W.2d 822, 824 (Minn. App. 1995) (considering the restrained party’s ability to work
from his office rather th an at the site of the victim’s business); Welsh v. Johnson , 508
N.W.2d 212, 215 (Mi nn. App. 1993) (considering the constitutionality of the harassment
statute by balancing the “well-being, tran quility, and privacy of the [victim’s] home”
against the restrained party’s rights to express his views (quotation omitted)).
While Mr. Buhr claims that a 250-foot re striction for two people working at the
same facility results in a facially overbroad ex parte order, we conclude that the restriction
was reasonable based on the facility and the conduct in question. The restraining order was

12
in part meant to address the fact that Mr. B uhr had taken pictures of Ms. Grittner without
her permission at their workplace. The 250-f oot radius is a reasonable way to balance
allowing Mr. Buhr to continue to work at the same facilit y as Ms. Grittner while limiting
his ability to take unwanted photographs of her. The fact that most of Mr. Buhr’s violations
of the temporary restraining order appear to have occurred in connection with his lunch-
time walks suggests that the 250-foot restrict ion was not overly burdensome with respect
to his work itself.
Mr. Buhr suggests that a five-foot restriction, like in the temporary restraining order
in Dayton Hudson Corp., would have been suffi cient, but this proposal does not address
the differences between that case and this one. In Dayton Hudson Corp. , the temporary
restraining order came after physical encounters between the restrained party and a store’s
employees after the restrained party tried to steal merchandise. 528 N.W.2d at 261-62. The
restraining order prevented the party from going within five feet of the store. Id. at 263.
Here, the restraining order was meant in part to address the privacy concerns implicated by
Mr. Buhr taking pictures of Ms. Grittner wi thout her permission. A five-foot restriction
would be insufficient to address those concerns. The ex parte HRO was not overly broad.
Affirmed.