Court records describe months of alleged stalking before a July custody exchange ended with Pliska’s death and her former partner’s arrest.
ST. FRANCIS, Wis. — Kiana Pliska went to court on July 16 seeking protection from a former partner she said had tracked her movements, appeared at her home and frightened her with escalating behavior. Hours later, police say, she was shot during a custody exchange outside a St. Francis apartment complex.
Randall Alexander Lenyard Sr., 33, was charged in Milwaukee County with first-degree intentional homicide and stalking in the death of Pliska, 32. The criminal complaint and related court records describe not only the shooting but a months-long sequence of alleged conduct that prosecutors say preceded it. Pliska’s second petition for a temporary restraining order was filed on the day she died. Local court reporting says the order was granted the next day, after the shooting. The charges are allegations, and the statements attributed to Lenyard in court records have not been tested at trial.
The records place the beginning of Pliska’s documented concerns months earlier. In a restraining-order petition, she said she found an AirTag tracker on her vehicle on Jan. 1 and later noticed Lenyard turning up at places connected to her. She alleged that he appeared at her home and workplace and contacted people around her in efforts to learn where she was. Prosecutors cited those claims when bringing the stalking charge. The filings do not establish every allegation as independently proven, but they show that Pliska had repeatedly described conduct she believed was threatening well before the fatal encounter.
Pliska also described a February confrontation in which she said Lenyard threatened her, put his hands around her neck and pinned her down. Local reports citing court records say police arrested him after that incident and he was later released. The available reports do not provide a complete account of how any separate case tied to that allegation was resolved. That distinction matters because the homicide complaint draws on the earlier events as part of an alleged pattern, while the current criminal case will require prosecutors to prove the charges filed in connection with Pliska’s death.
In April, Pliska sought court protection for the first time that year. Reporting based on court records says a temporary order was issued, but the matter was later dismissed when she did not appear for a scheduled hearing. The public record reviewed for this story does not establish why she missed that hearing. Lenyard’s sister later told investigators that she had urged him for months to leave Pliska alone and said she believed he had pulled Pliska back into the relationship. That account comes from the complaint and represents the sister’s statement to police, not a judicial finding about why the April case ended.
By mid-July, the allegations had intensified again. Pliska wrote that Lenyard had recently appeared at her home and damaged a door while their child was present. One local report, citing the petition, said the 6-year-old called 911 during that episode. Pliska also accused Lenyard of repeatedly calling her, showing up at unpredictable times, sending flowers to her workplace and attempting to locate her through other people. She returned to court July 16 and filed another petition. In that filing, she wrote that she was afraid of what he might do next.
Later that day, Pliska and Lenyard met at the Lake Park Apartments on South Packard Avenue for a custody handoff involving their son, according to the criminal complaint. Police were called at about 6:30 p.m. after multiple reports of gunfire. Officers found Pliska outside with multiple gunshot wounds and provided aid before she was taken to a hospital, where she died. A witness told investigators that a man near Pliska’s vehicle fired, moved around the vehicle and fired additional shots before leaving in a blue sedan with a child in the back seat. Authorities later identified the child as the couple’s son.
The complaint says Lenyard contacted his sister shortly after the shooting and told her that he had shot Pliska. Investigators say he also made statements suggesting he was considering harming himself and the child. His sister called 911 and continued communicating with him while trying to get the boy away from him safely. According to the complaint, she eventually persuaded Lenyard to meet her without police visibly present. The meeting place changed before she was able to take custody of the child at a Walgreens. The boy was not physically harmed in the episode described by authorities.
Police arrested Lenyard later that night. Early reports from St. Francis police said a 33-year-old Milwaukee man was taken into custody about two hours after the shooting and that investigators considered the case domestic-related. Subsequent court reporting identified Lenyard and detailed statements police say he made after his arrest. According to the complaint, he acknowledged that he and Pliska had argued and admitted shooting her, including firing again as she tried to get away. Those statements are central to the state’s case but remain allegations contained in a charging document unless and until they are admitted and proved in court.
The first court hearing brought the two strands of the case together: the killing itself and the stalking allegations that prosecutors say came before it. Assistant District Attorney Patrick Anderson argued that the prior conduct had been escalating and pointed to allegations involving violence and weapons. Court Commissioner Barry Phillips set cash bond at $250,000, below the $1 million prosecutors requested, and ordered Lenyard to have no contact with his son or Pliska’s family. Phillips used unusually forceful language in describing the allegations, but his comments at an initial appearance did not determine guilt.
The timing of the July restraining-order petition has become one of the most striking elements of the public record. Some early coverage reported that the order was granted on July 16, but multiple Milwaukee-area reports that reviewed the docket say Pliska filed that day and the temporary order was granted the following morning, after she had died. The distinction does not change the criminal charges, but it is important to the chronology. The documents show that Pliska had again turned to the civil court system shortly before prosecutors say she was killed by the person she was asking the court to restrain.
The civil filing and the criminal complaint serve different legal purposes. A restraining-order petition records allegations offered in support of immediate civil protection; a criminal complaint sets out the state’s allegations and the basis for bringing charges. Neither is a final finding of criminal guilt. In Lenyard’s case, prosecutors charged first-degree intentional homicide, the most serious homicide offense under Wisconsin law, along with stalking. If the homicide charge is sustained, it carries the possibility of life imprisonment. The stalking count addresses the alleged course of conduct described in the months before Pliska’s death.
Pliska’s death also left the couple’s young son at the center of a case built in part around what happened during a routine custody exchange. Court reporting says the child was present when the shooting occurred and was then driven away by Lenyard before being transferred to a relative. Authorities have not released extensive details about the child, and responsible coverage has limited identifying information because he is a minor. The complaint’s account of the sister’s intervention provides one of the clearest explanations of how police say the immediate threat to the boy ended that evening.
The latest confirmed scheduling information in the consulted coverage listed a preliminary hearing for July 29. Lenyard remains accused, not convicted, of the homicide and stalking charges. The case now turns on the criminal court process, where prosecutors will have to establish the allegations in the complaint and the defense will have the opportunity to challenge the evidence.
Author note: Last updated August 26, 2026.









Lord Abbett High Yield Fund Q4 2025 Commentary: What Investors Need to Know for a Profitable Future!
Jersey City, New Jersey—In the closing quarters of 2025, Lord Abbett High Yield Fund navigated a challenging investment landscape, marked by evolving interest rates and shifting economic indicators. Analysts noted that despite initial obstacles, investors were encouraged by the fund’s strategic allocation and management decisions, which positioned it favorably amidst market uncertainty. The fund’s performance during the fourth quarter reflected a cautious but calculated approach to high-yield debt. With inflationary pressures beginning to stabilize, the fund’s managers focused on identifying opportunities in sectors that showed ... Read more