Geoffrey & Charlotte Anderson, V. Stuart & Janet Mccoll

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: May 10, 2022
• Docket: 55581-6
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

May 10, 2022

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

GEOFFREY and CHARLOTTE ANDERSON, No. 55581-6-II

Respondents,

v.

STUART and JANET MCCOLL, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appellants.

WORSWICK, J. — Stuart McColl appeals from the superior court’s denial of his motion to

reconsider a district court antiharassment order prohibiting him from surveilling his neighbors,

Geoffrey and Charlotte Anderson. McColl argues that the protection order violates his due

process right to surveil his neighbors’ allegedly illegal activity. We disagree and affirm.

FACTS

This case arises from a strained neighbor relationship. McColl contends that his

neighbors, the Andersons, conducted illegal fires on their property in violation of fire and clean

air codes. To support his contentions, McColl engaged in video and photographic surveillance of

the Andersons’ property. In 2020, the Andersons petitioned the district court for an

antiharassment order of protection from McColl.

The district court entered an antiharassment order of protection prohibiting McColl from

attempting to contact, surveilling, or coming within 50 feet of the Andersons. The protection

order also prohibited McColl from posting signage directed at the Andersons’ use of their No. 55581-6-II

property. McColl appealed the protection order to superior court, arguing that the protection

order violated his due process rights to surveil the Andersons’ allegedly illegal activity. The

superior court denied McColl’s appeal. McColl moved for reconsideration, which the superior

court denied.

McColl appeals the superior court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration.

ANALYSIS

McColl argues that the superior court erred by denying his motion for reconsideration

because the district court’s antiharassment protection order violates his due process right to

surveil his neighbors’ allegedly illegal activity. We disagree.

RCW 10.14.080 authorizes the district court to enter an antiharassment order if a victim

shows reasonable proof of harassment. McColl does not challenge the district court’s finding of

harassment. Rather, he contends that being restrained from surveilling his neighbors violates his

constitutional due process rights. However, McColl fails to cite any authority to support his

contention that he has a due process right to surveil his neighbors. No absolute right to

photograph or videotape someone exists. State v. Noah, 103 Wn. App. 29, 42, 9 P.3d 858

(2000).

“Protecting citizens from harassment is a compelling state interest.” Noah, 103 Wn. App.

at 41. RCW 10.14.080 authorizes the court to order a defendant have no contact with his

intended victim. Specifically, RCW 10.14.080(6)(b) authorizes the court to prohibit a harasser

from “making any attempts to keep the [victim] under surveillance.” The antiharassment order

for protection entered against McColl is consistent with the statute and does not impermissibly

2 No. 55581-6-II

infringe upon McColl’s due process rights. Accordingly, we hold that the superior court did not

err by denying McColl’s motion for reconsideration of the antiharassment protection order.

We affirm.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW

2.06.040, it is so ordered.

Worswick, P.J. We concur:

Lee, J.

Veljacic, J.