The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) against William Darrell Petrey, affirming the trial court's decision to deny his motion to vacate the order. The ruling, issued on October 19, 2026, affects Petrey and highlights the court's stance on stalking and harassment protections.
Brooke Ehlers, the director of the Montgomery County Coroner's Office, initially sought the CSPO in March 2023 after Petrey and his associate made repeated threats against her. This case underscores the legal protections available to individuals facing harassment and the importance of maintaining safety in the workplace.
Background
Brooke Ehlers filed for a CSPO against William Darrell Petrey after he and Anthony Thomas made public records requests regarding certain deaths, which they believed were part of a cover-up. From November 2022 to March 2023, Petrey and Thomas contacted Ehlers frequently, sending threatening emails and making menacing remarks about her family. Ehlers filed for the CSPO on March 6, 2023, and the court granted an ex parte order that day.
A full hearing took place on March 29, 2023, where the magistrate issued a five-year CSPO against both Petrey and Thomas. The magistrate found that Petrey had engaged in a pattern of conduct that caused Ehlers to suffer mental distress and fear for her safety. The CSPO prohibited Petrey from contacting Ehlers and restricted his possession of firearms.
The Ruling
In its recent decision, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Petrey's motion to vacate the CSPO. Judge Hendrickson stated, "Petrey's belief that the CSPO should never have been granted is not grounds for termination." The court found that Petrey failed to demonstrate any material change in circumstances that would justify vacating the order.
Additionally, the court addressed Petrey's arguments regarding the applicability of the Supreme Court case Counterman v. Colorado, which discussed the mental state required for a true threat. The court concluded that the CSPO's issuance was based on a higher standard of 'knowingly' engaging in conduct that caused Ehlers to fear for her safety, rather than the 'recklessness' standard discussed in Counterman.
Impact
This ruling reinforces the legal protections available to individuals facing stalking and harassment. The court's decision highlights the importance of maintaining safety for victims and the judicial system's commitment to upholding protective orders. It also clarifies the standards for issuing CSPOs in Ohio, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to demonstrate the need for such orders.
The ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving CSPOs, particularly in how courts interpret the mental state required for determining threats and harassment. Individuals in similar situations may find encouragement in the court's commitment to protecting victims of stalking.
What's Next
Petrey has the option to appeal this decision to a higher court, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The case serves as a reminder of the legal avenues available to individuals seeking protection from harassment and the importance of adhering to court orders.