[pcaharrier]

Yes, even where there is no physical trespass, there very well may be other torts or crimes. Obviously, if you set fire to your neighbor's house, you can't get out of an arson charge by arguing that you "only" did it with a laser. You could use a comically-large magnifying glass and still end up a convicted felon in that situation.

However, I don't think it's a weak analysis given the question the court had to answer.

They weren't asked "Can your neighbor get away with shining any light on you or your property, no matter how intense?" but rather "Does shining a light on a person's property count as 'Placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual' for purposes of this specific Michigan statute that defines 'unconsented contact' that would support a nondomestic PPO"?

In fact, Michigan state law and the Dearborn, Michigan local ordinances (like numerous other state and local laws) do separately prohibit the use of lasers to injure/harass (at least under certain circumstances): https://www.laserpointersafety.com/rules-general/uslaws/usla....

[boxed]

Yea ok. That makes the law stupid, and not the analysis I guess.

[pcaharrier]

I actually think the law isn't terrible (at least not as far as state stalking laws go), but the argument that his lawyer (or the petitioner himself; it's not clear whether he was represented) strikes me as a little odd.

The stalking statute defines “Unconsented contact” as "any contact with another individual that is initiated or continued without that individual’s consent or in disregard of that individual’s expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued." It then goes on to list seven things that constitute unconsented contact, with the caveat that the definition includes "but is not limited to, any of" those seven things. A little further down in the opinion the court explains "Petitioner contends that the light stemming from respondents’ flood lights constitutes unconsented contact under MCL 750.411h(1)(f)(vii)."

Perhaps the statute could use a little tightening, but it seems to me that hanging your hat on "light is an object" is a silly argument, when you could just as easily have argued that shining the lights is contact of the kind that isn't expressly included in the non-exhaustive list. If true, one might be able to show that it was done on purpose and with knowledge that it would annoy. That should be enough to constitute unconsented contact, especially when you compare it to the other kinds of things the statute lists (e.g., "Sending mail or electronic communications to that individual" with no requirement that they be opened or read).

It's also worth noting that the court didn't overrule the trial court on the other arguments the petitioner made because "there was no persuasive evidence showing that respondents were responsible for these incidents" and "given [the] lack of detail, the trial court did not clearly err." Moral of the story: if you think your neighbor is harassing you, make a note of dates and times.