K. A. L. v. Hinkle

If it is determined that a person has intentionally or recklessly engaged in two or more unwanted contacts with a person, which alarms the recipient in an objectively reasonable manner, a trial court may issue a stalking protective order. ORS 163.738(2)(a)(B)(i). The recipient of the unwanted contacts must have a "reasonable apprehension regarding his or her personal safety." ORS 163.738(2)(a)(B)(iii). However, when the contacts are merely expressive, (i.e. spoken or written communications), Article 1, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution requires a showing that "those expressive contacts constitute[d] 'threats.'" State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303 (1999).

Respondent appealed a stalking protective order, (SPO), which had been entered against him by the trial court. On appeal, Respondent argued that the trial court erred in determining that the evidence was sufficient to support the issuance of an SPO. If it is determined that a person has intentionally or recklessly engaged in two or more unwanted contacts with a person, which alarms the recipient in an objectively reasonable manner, a trial court may issue a stalking protective order. ORS 163.738(2)(a)(B)(i). The recipient of the unwanted contacts must have a "reasonable apprehension regarding his or her personal safety." ORS 163.738(2)(a)(B)(iii). However, when the contacts are merely expressive, (i.e. spoken or written communications), Article 1, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution requires a showing that "those expressive contacts constitute[d] 'threats.'" State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303 (1999). The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in granting a stalking protective order because while Respondent’s expressive contacts “understandably made petitioner uncomfortable,” it was not the case that at least two of these contacts constituted "threats" nor were they objectively alarming. Reversed.