389 P.3d 413
Or. Ct. App.2017Background
- Petitioner obtained a stalking protective order (SPO) after several contacts from respondent at their shared workplace.
- Contacts included verbal comments (Halloween invite, song anecdote, perfume comment saying it made him “want to attack someone”), office call about being “sick together,” instant messages, an unsigned note and a CD left on petitioner’s desk.
- Human resources twice instructed respondent to have no further contact, but respondent sent additional messages after those admonitions.
- Trial court issued the SPO; respondent appealed, arguing the communicative contacts were expressive speech and did not constitute threats of imminent physical harm.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the communicative contacts met the Rangel standard for speech-based threats and whether the contacts satisfied the SPO statutory elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the communicative (expressive) contacts constituted legally actionable threats under Rangel | The contacts alarmed and coerced petitioner and therefore supported an SPO | Respondent: the communicative contacts were speech only and not unequivocal threats of imminent serious violence as required by Rangel | Court: communicative contacts did not meet Rangel’s strict threat standard; insufficient to support SPO |
| Whether there were repeated, unwanted contacts sufficient for an SPO | Petitioner: cumulative pattern (multiple contacts plus note/CD) produced alarm and reasonable apprehension | Respondent: even if one noncommunicative contact (CD/note) counts, the remaining communicative contacts are not actionable threats; insufficient repetition of actionable contacts | Court: even assuming the CD/note might be a single noncommunicative contact, remaining communicative contacts fail; SPO improperly issued |
Key Cases Cited
- Tesema v. Belete, 266 Or. App. 650 (pattern requires two or more unwanted contacts)
- Reitz v. Erazo, 248 Or. App. 700 (each contact must individually give rise to subjective and objectively reasonable alarm or coercion)
- Blastic v. Holm, 248 Or. App. 414 (contacts cumulatively must give rise to reasonable apprehension about personal safety)
- Christensen v. Carter/Bosket, 261 Or. App. 133 (defines expressive contacts as speech, oral or written)
- Gray v. McGinnis, 277 Or. App. 679 (speech-only contacts qualify only if they express a threat of imminent serious violence under Rangel)
- State v. Rangel, 328 Or. 294 (speech qualifies as a threat only if unambiguous, unequivocal, specific to addressee, and objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts)