Mitchell v. Trummel [1]

Stephen Mitchell, the administrator of Council House, Inc., a nonprofit housing complex for low-income senior citizens in Seattle, sought a restraining order against Council House resident Paul Trummel in 2001 after Trummel allegedly verbally accosted staff and residents, disrupted meetings, posted his newsletter on resident doors without permission, spied on residents at night by listening outside their apartment doors, and threatened to report residents to criminal authorities if they failed to meet with him, among other things.  The trial court granted a restraining order that prohibited Trummel from making any attempt to contact Mitchell or to keep Mitchell "under surveillance," and from going within 1,000 feet of Mitchell's residence or workplace, from entering or coming within 500 feet of Council House, and from "contacting in person, by email, electronically, by telephone, by writing, or through any third person, any resident of Council House and any board member, staff or employee of Council House at any location." 

Five months later, Mitchell moved for a finding of civil contempt for violation of the antiharassment, claiming that Trummel violated the "surveillance" provision of the anti-harassment order by posting stories on the Internet about events at the Council House.  He alleged that staff and residents felt endangered by Trummel's posting of their private information, including their home addresses, on the website and that they "felt under contiued surveillance by Trummel." Trummel argued that Mitchell's definition of "surveillance" was too broad and that he was exercising his First Amendment rights when posting about events at Council House, occurring both before and after the anti-harassment order was issued.

The trial court found Trummel in civil contempt and ordered him to edit his website "to assure that is in compliance with the . . . anti-harassment order" by, at a minimum, deleting the "names, addresses and any other personal information regarding past and present Council House staff, residents, employees, board members, or agents including legal council." The court determined in a later hearing that Trummel continued to be in contempt and modified the original harassment order, adding language restraining Trummel from "attempting to keep under suveillance" any current or former resident of Council House.  At this point, Trummel deleted identifying information about residents from his website.

Trummel then began using an off-shore website to post information about staff and residents of Council House.  At a subsequent hearing, at which Trummel was not represented by council, the court found him in contempt again and ordered him jailed.  He remained in jail for almost four months.  

Trummel appealed the contempt findings and anti-harassment orders. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in all respects.  On further appeal, the Washington Supreme Court vactated the contempt findings on grounds that posting information about events and people at Council House did not constitute "surveillance." The court vacated those portions of the anti-harassment orders that restrained Trummel from attempting to keep residents and staff  under surveillance, from contacting current or former residents and staff, and from going within 100 feet of any past, current, or future Council House Board member, resident, or employee. The court did not reach Trummel's arguments that the anti-harassment and contempt orders violated the First Amendment. See generally Trummel v. Mitchell [2], 131 P.3d 305 (Wash. 2006).