C.L.C. v. Bowman

Terminating a Stalking Protective Order (SPO) involves considering all of the evidence, including internet evidence, to determine if the context that gave rise to the SPO still causes a subjective apprehension of a threat to their personal safety. If the context still exists and is otherwise objectively reasonable, the SPO should not be terminated.

Petitioner appealed the trial court's termination of a stalking protective order. In 2006, Petitioner obtained an SPO under ORS 30.866. The respondent moved to terminate the SPO in 2009 and following a hearing, the trial court agreed. Petitioner appealed arguing the trial court failed to consider internet evidence which supported maintaining the SPO. Respondent argued under Edwards v. Biehler that an SPO can be terminated "on a respondent's motion when the criteria for issuing the order are no longer present." Additionally, the Respondent argued that the internet postings were speech, and that conduct involving speech must be a "threat" under State v. Rangel. The Court of Appeals determined the proper inquiry when terminating an SPO involves considering all of the circumstances and evaluating whether the conduct that gave rise to the SPO continues to cause the petitioner "subjective apprehension" of a threat to their personal safety that is objectively reasonable. The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in concluding the internet postings were not a threat under the Rangel standard and by not considering the internet postings in their decision. Reversed and Remanded.