369 P.3d 1181
Or. Ct. App.2016Background
- Petitioner and respondent had a three-year romantic relationship that ended; they remained in contact as friends until petitioner cut off contact in late December 2013 by written message.
- After the breakup petitioner received multiple unwanted contacts from respondent over several months: emails, letters, texts, social‑media views, a bouquet left at her doorstep (no card), and photographs on an online dating profile showing places they had visited together.
- In 2014 respondent moved to the petitioner’s city, began frequenting the petitioner’s former gym and encountered her at nearby Starbucks on multiple occasions; most encounters were nonconfrontational eye contact or brief greetings.
- On October 7 respondent followed petitioner from a Starbucks to the parking lot, made repeated statements that he was “not happy” and “didn’t have what he wanted,” briefly grabbed her arm to warn her about a car, and offered to buy her coffee; petitioner left and a few days later found a birthday card and coffee left by the Starbucks door with her name on the envelope.
- Petitioner filed for a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) under ORS 30.866; the trial court found repeated unwanted contacts, subjective alarm, and that petitioner’s fear for personal safety was objectively reasonable and granted the permanent SPO.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed whether the evidence met each statutory element of ORS 30.866, and reversed solely on the ground that petitioner’s fear for her personal safety was not shown to be objectively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported SPO element that petitioner suffered objectively reasonable apprehension for her personal safety (ORS 30.866(1)(c)) | Contacts were repeated, unwanted, escalatory, and made petitioner feel endangered; her subjective fear that respondent might harm her was reasonable given his persistence and prior intimacy | Contacts were nonthreatening, there was no history of violence or threats, and mere unwelcome or unsettling conduct is insufficient to show objective fear for safety | Reversed: Although contacts were unwanted and caused subjective alarm, petitioner did not show objectively reasonable apprehension for personal safety absent threatening conduct or history of violence |
| Whether nonthreatening but persistent contacts and contextual evidence can substitute for explicit threats to satisfy the safety-apprehension element | Persistent stalking-like behavior and context (e.g., moving nearby, following, leaving items) made a reasonable person fear future violence | Law requires something more than unsettling or harassing conduct; without threats or violent history, contacts do not establish objective risk of physical harm | Held that without inherently threatening contacts or evidence of prior violence, unsettling or unpleasant contacts alone do not support objective fear of physical injury for ORS 30.866 |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Hoesen v. Williams, 271 Or. App. 466 (Or. Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review for SPO sufficiency)
- Miller v. Hoefer, 269 Or. App. 218 (Or. Ct. App. 2015) (burden to prove ORS 30.866 elements by preponderance)
- Christensen v. Carter/Bosket, 261 Or. App. 133 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (two or more unwanted contacts within two years requirement)
- Brown v. Roach, 249 Or. App. 579 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (subjective alarm and objective reasonableness explained)
- Huber v. Landolt, 267 Or. App. 753 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (unsettling or unpleasant contacts alone insufficient for SPO)
- Braude v. Braude, 250 Or. App. 122 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (context may change benign conduct, but evidence of past violence is relevant)
- Delgado v. Souders, 334 Or. 122 (Or. 2002) (circumstances of contacts can create objective safety concerns)
- State v. Rangel, 328 Or. 294 (Or. 1999) (distinguishing protected speech from threatening communications)