The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a Civil Stalking Protection Order (CSPO) against Dennis Briggs, affirming the lower court's decision that he engaged in a pattern of harassment against G.L. This ruling, issued on August 10, 2026, affects not only Briggs but also sets a precedent for how stalking cases are handled in Ohio.
The case stems from a petition filed by G.L. in August 2025, who alleged that Briggs made vulgar comments at her workplace and stalked her by watching her car. The court's decision highlights the seriousness of stalking behaviors and the legal protections available for victims.
Background
G.L. filed for a CSPO against Dennis Briggs after experiencing multiple incidents of harassment. According to the court documents, Briggs approached G.L. at her job and made inappropriate comments. He also reportedly sat outside her workplace, watching her vehicle. G.L. described feeling anxious and unsafe, stating that she had to alter her parking routine to avoid being seen by Briggs.
The Medina County Court of Common Pleas initially issued an ex parte CSPO, which means it was granted without a hearing due to the immediate danger perceived by G.L. Following this, a full hearing was conducted where the magistrate heard evidence from both parties. The magistrate ultimately ruled in favor of G.L., issuing a five-year CSPO against Briggs.
Briggs later filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate’s decision, claiming that the order was issued in error. He argued that there was only one incident of harassment and that the order violated Ohio law requiring two or more incidents for a CSPO to be justified. This led to his appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
The Ruling
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Betty Sutton, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court noted that Briggs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims that the CSPO was unjustified. The court stated, "We must presume the evidence supported the magistrate’s findings," due to Briggs's failure to submit a transcript of the hearing or an affidavit of the evidence presented.
In ruling against Briggs, the court emphasized that he did not meet the burden of proof required to challenge the magistrate's findings. The court also pointed out that Briggs's arguments regarding the number of incidents were not substantiated by the necessary documentation. As a result, the court overruled all six of Briggs's assignments of error.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving stalking and harassment in Ohio. It reinforces the legal standards for issuing a CSPO and emphasizes the importance of providing evidence when contesting such orders. Victims of stalking can feel more secure knowing that the courts take these allegations seriously and are willing to uphold protection orders when warranted.
The decision also clarifies the responsibilities of individuals contesting protection orders. They must provide adequate evidence to support their claims, or they risk having their appeals dismissed. This ruling may encourage more victims to seek protection without fear of their cases being dismissed due to technicalities.
What's Next
Briggs has the option to appeal the decision to a higher court, but details on whether he intends to do so were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that directly connect to this appeal, but the ruling may influence future stalking cases in Ohio.