M. W. V. H. v. Van Hoff

To receive an SPO, the victim must show that it was “objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced.” ORS 30.866(1)(a),(b). Further, the conduct must have caused “reasonable apprehension,” referring to the victim’s own personal safety. ORS 30.866(1)(c).

Respondent appealed a judgment where a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) was entered against her. Petitioner, Respondent’s ex-husband, obtained the SPO after the occurrence of three incidents. Respondent assigned error to the trial court’s finding that there was sufficient evidence to issue an SPO and argued that Petitioner failed to prove “objectively reasonable apprehension” regarding personal safety. To receive an SPO, the victim must show that it was “objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced.” ORS 30.866(1)(a),(b). Further, the conduct must have caused “reasonable apprehension,” referring to the victim’s own personal safety. ORS 30.866(1)(c). The Court held that the evidence did not show that the truck break-in caused reasonable apprehension because Petitioner was not present and stated the break-in was inconsequential due to the belief that it was done by a stranger. Additionally, the other incident reviewed by the Court was also insufficient to obtain an SPO because there were no signs that Respondent was a physical threat. The conduct of following Petitioner to the store was only unsettling and more than mere concern is required. Reversed.