M. F. v. Baker

Under ORS 30.866, "if the contact in question amounts to communication by speech or writing, only a threat will be sufficient to ‘cause apprehension or fear resulting from the perception of danger,’ as ORS 163.730 requires.” State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303, 977 P2d 379 (1999).

Respondent appealed a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) against him. Respondent assigned error to the trial court’s issuance of the SPO, arguing that there were not two or more qualifying contacts and that the speech-based contacts did not meet the heightened standard. Under ORS 30.866, to obtain an SPO, a petitioner must establish that the respondent engaged in repeated and unwanted contact with the petitioner that gave rise to subjective and objectively reasonable alarm or coercion. Under ORS 163.730, a “repeated” contact occurs two or more times, and is “alarming” if it “cause[s] apprehension or fear resulting from the perception of danger." "If the contact in question amounts to communication by speech or writing, only a threat will be sufficient to ‘cause apprehension or fear resulting from the perception of danger,’ as ORS 163.730 requires.” State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303, 977 P2d 379 (1999). The Court found that because Petitioner did not prove that there were repeated contacts or that the speech-based contacts were objectively alarming, Petitioner did not create an objectively reasonable fear of threatened physical injury. The Court held that Petitioner did not meet the legal standard required for the trial court to issue an SPO. Reversed.