A.M.M. v. Hoeffer

A Petitioner to meet the burden of proof for a permanent stalking protective order (SPO), petitioner must tie their fear and alarm to an apprehension regarding personal safety.

Respondent appealed a judgement imposing a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) under ORS 30.866. Petitioner petitioned for the SPO against Hoeffer, the Respondent. After Petitioner and Hoeffer stopped dating, Hoeffer confronted Petitioner at a nightclub. Later that night, Hoeffer took items from Petitioner’s front porch, that he had returned earlier, then sent five e-mails to a friend of Petitioner, calling her a “downtown tramp”. Several days later, petitioner filed for an SPO, and the court granted her a temporary SPO. At the hearing for the permanent SPO Hoeffer argued that evidence is insufficient to support an SPO because his contacts did not contain a “threat” as defined in ORS 30.866. The trial court held that petitioner met the burden of proof that his unwanted contact represents a threat. Hoeffer appealed, and the Court of appeals held that because the petitioner did not tie her fear and alarm to apprehension regarding personal safety, the record has no basis for the court to assess whether apprehension was objectively reasonable. Reversed.