## Facts

- Beverly L. Brekke’s 16-year-old daughter, Danielle, began dating 15-year-old Dean Wills and thereafter had serious behavioral and academic problems, including skipping school and failing classes.
- Brekke searched Danielle’s room and found letters from Wills that Brekke believed were intended to be found and read by her.
- After Brekke told Danielle she could no longer see Wills, Wills wrote multiple letters containing extreme obscenity directed at Brekke and describing sexual acts involving Danielle.
- The letters included content describing a plan to provoke an assault by Danielle’s parents to support a lawsuit and content contemplating killing Brekke and her husband.
- Brekke testified she was alarmed, believed Wills was unpredictable, and felt his conduct was aimed at creating conflict in her home.
- Wills asserted the letters were a “joke” and not threats, and argued his speech and relationship with Danielle were constitutionally protected.

## Issues

1. Whether Wills’s communications and related conduct constituted “harassment” under California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6 sufficient to support injunctive relief, and whether the resulting no-contact order impermissibly infringed First Amendment and related rights.
2. Whether the injunction was invalid because it did not state an expiration date and allegedly operated as a permanent restraint.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the harassment injunction issued under § 527.6.
- The court held the letters and surrounding conduct constituted a course of conduct directed at Brekke that seriously alarmed and harassed her, served no legitimate purpose, and would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress.
- The court rejected Wills’s constitutional objections, treating the communications as part of unprotected harassing conduct rather than protected expression or association.
- The court held the omission of an end date did not invalidate the order because § 527.6 limits such injunctions to a maximum of three years, which applies by operation of law.

## Legal Principles

- Under Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6, “harassment” includes a course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses, serves no legitimate purpose, and causes (and would cause a reasonable person to suffer) substantial emotional distress.
- Courts may enjoin a course of harassing conduct even when it consists partly of written or verbal communications, when those communications function as harassment and lack legitimate purpose.
- A stay-away/no-contact order directed at preventing harassment is not invalid merely because it affects a defendant’s desired association, particularly where the conduct is directed at the protected person and the order is confined to contact and proximity limits.
- A harassment injunction under § 527.6 cannot exceed three years; if the order omits an expiration date, the statutory limit supplies the termination date by operation of law.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a civil harassment injunction based on obscene and threatening letters directed at a minor’s parent, concluding the communications were a harassing course of conduct outside constitutional protection and that any failure to list an expiration date did not create a permanent order because § 527.6 imposes a three-year maximum duration.


Brekke v. Wills, 125 Cal. App. 4th 1400, 23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 609 (Ct. App. 2005)