Background

• Respondent challenges a stalking protective order (SPO) issued against him; standard of review is deferential for factual findings and legal conclusions absent an exceptional de novo review case.
• Petitioner and respondent formerly worked together at the DEA; their relationship deteriorated after December 2010, including offensive comments and a string of text messages from respondent.
• February 2011: respondent dry-fired his duty weapon at the DEA office on at least two days, with at least one witness; petitioner testified to perceiving risk and potential intimidation.
• June 27, 2011: respondent drove to petitioner’s home, yelled for him to come outside, and acted in a provocative manner that petitioner perceived as armed and threatening; 9-1-1 was called.
• Following these events, the SPO was issued after a hearing; the trial court found in petitioner’s favor and issued the permanent SPO against respondent.
• On appeal, respondent argues the evidence was insufficient and that de novo factual review is appropriate, but the court declines de novo review and affirms the SPO based on legally sufficient evidence.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Delgado v. Souders, 334 Or 122 (Or. 2002) (SPO standards; view evidence in petitioner’s favor)
• Falkenstein v. Falkenstein, 236 P.3d 798 (Or. App. 2010) (speech-related predicate contact must be a threat)
• State v. Rangel, 977 P.2d 379 (Or. 1999) (threats must be unequivocal and likely to be followed by unlawful acts)
• Habrat v. Milligan, 145 P.3d 180 (Or. App. 2006) (nonthreatening speech can provide context for nonexpressive contacts)
• Boyd v. Essin, 12 P.3d 1003 (Or. App. 2000) (subjective alarm can be inferred from conduct)
• Delgado involved an SPO issued under ORS 30.866, 334 Or 132 n.4 (Or. 2002) (identical requirements under statutes ORS 30.866 and ORS 163.738)
• Blastic v. Holm, 248 Or App 414 (Or. App. 2012) (applies Delgado analysis to SPO cases)
• Travis v. Strubel, 238 Or App 254 (Or. App. 2010) (standard of review for SPO appeals)