C. P. v. Mittelbach, 468 P.3d 496

Petitioner, a senior Oregon DOC official, obtained a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) after repeated unwanted encounters by respondent, a former DOC correctional officer, primarily at petitioner’s church.
From March–September 2017 respondent sent many work-related emails, was placed on leave, and became emotionally distraught after being fired on June 30, 2017.
Petitioner described multiple in-person incidents: an overlong hug with hands at her waist, intrusive touching/brushing on the small of her back, climbing over a pew to sit near her, prolonged staring, mirroring her movements to force encounters, and briefly appearing near her teenage daughter.
Oregon State Police (OSP) officers investigated, provided dignitary protection, warned respondent twice that petitioner did not want contact, and respondent initially acknowledged and agreed to stop.
Despite warnings, respondent engaged in two post-warning incidents (July 16 and Sept 3, 2017) that formed the basis for the SPO; the trial court found the statutory elements satisfied and issued the order.
On appeal, the court reviewed factual findings for any supporting evidence and affirmed: evidence supported the required mental state (intent/knowledge/recklessness) and that petitioner’s alarm and cumulative apprehension about personal safety were objectively reasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent acted with the requisite mental state (intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly) when he engaged in the July and Sept contacts	Respondent knew he was unwelcome after police warnings and consciously disregarded that risk by staring, mirroring, positioning himself near petitioner, and repeating intrusive acts	Respondent contends he complied with police instructions (no direct contact) and therefore lacked intent/knowledge/recklessness for the qualifying contacts	Court held respondent acted with at least reckless mental state: his continued pattern of conduct after warnings showed conscious disregard of the risk that contact was unwanted
Whether petitioner’s alarm (each contact) and cumulative apprehension (personal safety) were objectively reasonable	Given context—prior intimate/creeping actions, respondent’s emotional instability, police warnings, reports of violent fantasies, and conduct near petitioner’s child—petitioner’s alarm and cumulative apprehension were reasonable	Respondent argues his acts were boorish but nonviolent: no threats, no history of violence or firearm use against petitioner, no following to home/work, so fear of physical harm was not objectively reasonable	Court held both the individual alarms (July and Sept) and the cumulative apprehension about personal safety were objectively reasonable based on the totality of conduct and context

Christensen v. Carter/Bosket, 261 Or. App. 133 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate review: view facts in light most favorable to trial court’s disposition)
T. B. v. Holm, 248 Or. App. 414 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (alarm and apprehension requirements under stalking statute)
Reitz v. Erazo, 248 Or. App. 700 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) ("danger" means threat of physical injury, not mere annoyance)
State v. Rangel, 328 Or. 294 (Or. 1999) (extra requirements for expressive contacts that are threats of imminent serious violence)
Delgado v. Souders, 334 Or. 122 (Or. 2002) (equivalence of evidentiary requirements between SPO statutes)
Habrat v. Milligan, 208 Or. App. 229 (Or. Ct. App. 2006) (prior inappropriate conduct provides relevant context for reasonableness)
P. M. H. v. Landolt, 267 Or. App. 753 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (objective reasonableness assessed by cumulative effect of contacts)
Sparks v. Deveny, 221 Or. App. 283 (Or. Ct. App. 2008) (distinguishing cases where record lacks any apprehension about personal safety)