338 P.3d 776
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- A schism in a small church splits members into factions supporting the head priest and opposing him.
- Petitioner, the head priest, resided in a church-adjacent residence; respondent urged him to leave that residence.
- During a melee in the church meeting hall, respondent and others attempted to contact petitioner; respondent hit a defender with an object and threw a creamer container toward petitioner.
- Seven months later, respondent yelled at petitioner, then threw a garbage can near him; remarks included threats about leaving the church dead or alive.
- Petitioner sought a stalking protective order (SPO) under ORS 30.866; the trial court entered the SPO after finding alarm and credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contacts caused objective alarm under ORS 30.866 | Petitioner: alarm was objectively reasonable | Respondent: contacts were merely annoying | Yes; petitioner had objectively reasonable alarm at both contacts |
| Whether context (relationship, church setting) supports alarm | Petitioner: shared church role amplifies risk context | Respondent: continued relationship after first contact negates alarm | Context supports alarm; church setting elevates likelihood of danger |
| Whether a single speech act affects the analysis under ORS 30.866 | Petitioner: speech context informs nonexpressive contacts | Respondent: speech alone should not underpin the SPO | Speech considered as context; SPO based on nonexpressive contacts |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Roach, 249 Or App 579 (2012) (standard for reviewing SOS: two required contacts; context matters)
- Reitz v. Erazo, 248 Or App 700 (2012) (each contact must cause subjective and objective alarm)
- Noriega v. Parsons, 253 Or App 768 (2012) (objective alarm requires reasonable apprehension of safety)
- Amarillas v. White, 253 Or App 754 (2012) (continued contact in a shared space can still be alarming)
- Braude v. Braude, 250 Or App 122 (2012) (past peace not controlling; context matters for alarm)
- State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294 (1999) (speech threshold for threat analysis under constitution)
- Habrat v. Milligan, 208 Or App 229 (2006) (speech and nonexpressive contacts considered in context)
- Christensen v. Carter/Bosket, 261 Or App 133 (2014) (contextual consideration of contacts in SPO analysis)