Where a harassment prevention order was entered against a defendant under G.L.c. 258E, the order should not have been issued, as there was insufficient evidence of three acts of harassment.
"The defendant...contends that the plaintiff, with whom he was once in a relationship, did not prove the necessary three or more acts of harassment...
"...We discern from the record just one act that could fairly qualify as harassment. This act occurred on October 21, 2016, when the defendant arrived at the plaintiff's home heavily intoxicated, forcing the plaintiff to call the police to remove him from the home...
"The two other incidents identified in the plaintiff's affidavit and explored at the hearing do not constitute harassment. First, the plaintiff, who was employed as a medical assistant, claimed that the defendant and his former girlfriend went to the plaintiff's workplace to file a complaint against her for sharing the girlfriend's medical information. Even if the defendant's intent was to give the plaintiff's employer reason to fire her, as alleged in the affidavit, that would not equate with an intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse, or damage to property. At most, the motivation behind the complaint was to cause 'fear of economic loss,' which is not 'enough to make the complaint a "true threat" that may be prohibited as civil harassment.'...
"Second, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant's former girlfriend filed a similar complaint with the plaintiff's college. For the same reason, this incident did not establish the requisite intent on the part of the defendant to cause fear of physical harm or damage to property. Additionally, the plaintiff offered no evidence beyond mere speculation that the defendant or anyone acting under his direction was involved in filing the complaint..."
"We vacate the harassment prevention order and remand the matter to the District Court to direct the appropriate law enforement agencies to destroy all records of the order. See G.Lc. 258E, S9."
