OK Robb, Panther and everyone. I did correctly quote the language on the statute, as first enacted in 1992, but I neglected to tell you that the constitutionality of the statute was challenged for vagueness because "harrassment" not defined, was vague and subjective, and the Court so held.
The statute was amended in 1996, and "harrassment" was deleted.
The other thing I expected to be pinned on was that the stalking statute. I don't think that our perp could be considered a stalker because the statute says that the action against the person must take place over a period of time (time not defined)
So it will be challenged again, I believe, for vagueness.
Thanks for the input.