274 P.3d 214
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Petitioner sought a stalking protective order (SPO) against respondent in Oregon state court.
- Both shoppers regularly frequented a Goodwill outlet store with intense competition for books.
- Respondent pioneered a book-scanning method that increased crowding and aggression at the book bins.
- Respondent led a group that pushed into crowds, scanned books, and removed items before others could view them.
- Petitioner testified to about 10 physical pushes by respondent over two years and being followed and yelled at in the store.
- Two incidents formed the basis of petitioner's claim: a slugging event and respondent's intimidating statements; a car-scratching incident was excluded as time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there were two qualifying contacts under ORS 30.866(1). | Reitza asserts two contacts occurred (slugging and aggressive shopping). | Reynaud Erazo argues only one qualifying contact is proven (or none). | At most one contact; the SPO should be reversed. |
| Whether respondent's slugging constitutes a 'contact' under ORS 30.866(1). | Slugging caused alarm/coercion and is a contact. | Slugging alone does not prove a qualifying contact meeting statutory standards. | Slugging may be a contact but does not independently meet the standard here. |
| Whether respondent's statements or name-calling constitute a 'contact' under the Rangel framework for speech. | Statements and threats are actionable contacts per Rangel. | Statements do not meet the threat standard of Rangel. | Statements do not meet the Rangel threat standard; not a contact. |
| Whether the remaining aggressive shopping behavior supports an objectively reasonable alarm or coercion. | Group's aggressive shopping caused perceived danger. | Aggressive shopping described is harassment but not a danger to personal safety. | Aggressive shopping did not create objectively reasonable alarm or coercion. |
| Whether the two-plus year time-span for conduct complies with ORS 30.866(6) and timeliness. | No issue with timeliness for the two incidents. | Any older conduct may be time-barred. | Only conduct within two years is actionable; older incidents excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rangel, 328 Or. 294 (1999) (threat standard for speech-based contacts under Article I, section 8)
- Weatherly v. Wilkie, 169 Or.App. 257 (2000) (subjective and objective components of alarm/coercion test)
- Habrat v. Milligan, 208 Or.App. 229 (2006) (nonexpressive contacts contextualized for SPOs)
- Swarringim v. Olson, 234 Or.App. 309 (2010) (speech-based contacts and threats not always sufficient)