M. D. O. v. Desantis, 461 P.3d 1066

In Jan 2017 petitioner’s two juvenile sons assaulted respondent, causing serious leg injuries; juvenile proceedings followed and respondent blamed petitioner for the incident.
Over the next year relations deteriorated: respondent allegedly obtained the sons’ school records; respondent was later arrested on a charge (then pending) of assaulting a private investigator; petitioner publicly distributed documents about that arrest.
Sept 19, 2017: respondent followed petitioner for about 15 miles, including into rural “farm country,” where petitioner turned back and went to the local police station; respondent followed into the station parking lot. Petitioner felt hunted and alarmed.
Nov 19, 2017: the parties were parked “window-to-window”; respondent hurled insults, said he wanted to “beat the shit out of” petitioner and “If I don’t get you now, I’ll get you later.” Petitioner testified he was “rattled” and feared respondent would follow through.
Petitioner filed a stalking complaint Nov 20, 2017; the trial court found two qualifying contacts (the Sept following and the Nov verbal threat) and issued a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) on Dec 27, 2017. Desantis appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Petitioner (M. D. O.) Argument	Defendant (Desantis) Argument	Held
Whether the Sept 19 following constituted a qualifying nonexpressive contact because petitioner’s alarm was objectively reasonable	Following was frightening given the parties’ history and respondent’s conduct; alarm was objectively reasonable	The driving was innocuous; nothing about the following made alarm objectively reasonable	Court held petitioner’s alarm was objectively reasonable given the acrimonious history and the 15-mile close following into rural area
Whether the Nov 19 statements were an expressive contact that qualified as a threat (imminence and subjective fear)	The statement “If I don’t get you now, I’ll get you later,” together with “I’ll beat the shit out of you,” was an unequivocal, contextually imminent threat that caused fear	The statement was not an imminent threat (physical injury required moving/exiting cars) and petitioner was only baited, not actually afraid of imminent serious violence	Court held the statement was an unequivocal threat of imminent serious harm in context and the trial court could infer petitioner subjectively feared imminent serious personal violence; thus it qualified

State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294 (Or. 1999) (defines when speech qualifies as a "threat": fear of imminent and serious personal violence, unequivocal, and objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts)
Layne v. MacDonald, 267 Or App 628 (Or. App. 2014) (contextual factors can render colloquial threats imminently threatening)
Christensen v. Carter/Bosket, 261 Or App 133 (Or. App. 2014) (distinguishes expressive vs nonexpressive contacts and applies Rangel standard to speech)
Outlaw v. Richey, 301 Or App 18 (Or. App. 2019) (explains heightened standard for expressive contacts and that qualifying threats must convey imminent physical injury)
DiCarlo v. McCarthy, 208 Or App 184 (Or. App. 2006) (verbal threats and related context can be qualifying contacts supporting an SPO)