Wednesday, September 16, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Filming Someone in Public Is Lawful but Can Spawn DVRO
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Four of the First District Court of Appeal has declared that although it’s lawful to film someone who is in public without obtaining the person’s consent, that does not preclude issuance of a restraining order where the conduct amounts to harassment.
Monday’s unpublished opinion affirms an order by Alameda Superior Court Judge Stephanie Sato denying a special motion to strike a woman’s request for a domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”) against her ex-husband, Christopher Todd Brown, who allegedly repeatedly filmed her while making taunting remarks. Justice Jeremy M. Goldman authored the opinion.
The former wife—referred to by Goldman as “A.H.” but identified in public documents as Alethea Harper—did not dispute in the appeal that Brown’s conduct meets the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16—protected conduct—but maintained that Sato made the right call.
Minimal Merit
She explained:
“Even if Appellant Christopher Brown…satisfied the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute as to some portion of Respondent Alethea Harper’s…Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order…filed January 31, 2025, the trial court correctly denied his special motion to strike because Harper satisfied the second prong. She made a prima facie showing of minimal merit under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (‘DVPA’)”
She contended in her June 11 brief:
“Brown’s appeal rests on the mistaken premise that the DVPA requires physical violence, fear of being struck, or an express threat of bodily harm. It does not. Harassment and disturbing the peace are sufficient. Because Harper made a prima facie showing that her DVRO request had minimal merit, Brown loses at anti-SLAPP step two even if he satisfied step one.”
Goldman’s Opinion
Goldman agreed. He wrote:
“Brown fails to cite any case holding that conduct such as that alleged here is insufficient to establish abuse under the DVPA. Contrary to his suggestion, the statute makes clear that proof of physical violence or fear of physical harm is not required. Nor does the statute require proof that Brown made any specific threats to A.H. before a DRVO may be issued. As A.H. argues, Brown’s lawful right to film in a public place does not create a right to harass, follow, intimidate, or disturb the peace of a former spouse.”
The case is A.H. v. Brown, A174747.
No-Communication Order
Brown previously appealed from a Nov 8, 2023 order that he “may not speak with stepfather”—that is, Harper’s new husband, Kevin Lindquist. Harper was divorced from Brown on May 3, 2021 and married Lindquist in 2023.
The First District’s Div. Five dismissed that appeal on Jan. 24, 2025, saying in a unpublished memorandum opinion by Presiding Justice Teri L. Jackson:
“Because the record on appeal does not include the written order and the minute order itself is not appealable, we dismiss the appeal.”
Literal Interpretation
That district’s Div. Four on July 26, 2021, held in a unpublished opinion by Justice Jon B. Streeter that a judge was justified in imposing a five-year restraining order on Brown barring him from coming within 100 yards of Rhonda B. Barovsky who had been appointed a child custody mediator in the divorce case. However, taken literally, the order would have banished Brown from the courthouse and the panel directed that, on remand, the wording be altered to “include express exceptions permitting (1) the parties to be within 100 yards of each other in a courthouse as necessary for the parties to carry out any business they may have there, and (2) indirect contact between the parties through counsel.”
Last March 26, Brown sued the County of Alameda, Barovsky, and others. It is alleged that he was detained by sheriffs’ deputies at the courthouse after the mediator falsely reported that he was in violation of the restraining order, with one officer grabbing and spraining his wrist, and, after some interplay, that he was ejected from the building and told he would be arrested if he returned. The complaint seeks general, special, statutory and punitive damages, attorney fees, injunctive relief, and release of records including bodycam footage pursuant to the Public Records Act.
A demurrer was sustained on Aug. 13 with leave to amend and an amended complaint was filed on Sept. 9.
Brown has represented himself in all of the proceedings.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company