A. A. C. v. Miller-Pomlee

"Contact" does not require a "direct oral or visual connection between a petitioner and respondent;" it “is sufficient if the act, when learned, gives rise to an unwanted relationship or association between the petitioner and the respondent.” Boyd v. Essin, 170 Or App 509, 516-17, 12 P3d 1003 (2000), rev den, 331 Or 674 (2001).

Respondent appealed from the trial court’s grant of a stalking protective order against him. Respondent assigned error to the trial court’s finding that objectively non-threatening text messages constituted “unwanted contact.” On appeal, Respondent argued there was insufficient evidence to prove he had been digitally monitoring Petitioner’s location and, even if he was doing that, "monitoring" was not "contact" for the purposes of ORS 30.866. In response, Petitioner argued the evidence on record was sufficient to show Respondent was tracking her whereabouts. "Contact" does not require a "direct oral or visual connection between a petitioner and respondent;" it “is sufficient if the act, when learned, gives rise to an unwanted relationship or association between the petitioner and the respondent.” Boyd v. Essin, 170 Or App 509, 516-17, 12 P3d 1003 (2000), rev den, 331 Or 674 (2001). The Court of Appeals found that Respondent had been in "contact" with Petitioner because electronically tracking someone gives rise to the same effects as following someone in person; especially when it is unwanted.

Affirmed.