B.R.B. v. Sweeney

A petitioner may bring an action for a civil SPO if the respondent ‘intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engage[d] in [at least two] unwanted contact[s] with the petitioner thereby alarming or coercing the petitioner[.]’ ORS 30.866(1).

Trial court ruled a petition for a civil stalking protective order (SPO) facially deficient for lacking allegation of prior notice contacts were “unwanted”. Appellant assigned error to dismissal, arguing respondent “should have known” both contacts were unwanted.

“A petitioner may bring an action for a civil SPO if the respondent ‘intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engage[d] in [at least two] unwanted contact[s] with the petitioner thereby alarming or coercing the petitioner[.]’ ORS 30.866(1). The contacts must cause the petitioner ‘reasonable apprehension regarding [his or her] personal safety,’ and the petitioner’s alarm must be objectively reasonable. Id. If a trial court finds, based on the allegations in the petition, that the petitioner has met the elements set out in ORS 30.866(1), then it must enter a temporary SPO and can, after further proceedings, enter a permanent SPO. See ORS 30.866(2).”

Appellant alleged multiple unwanted contacts, including that respondent “tossed a package that resembled a bomb[,] . . . drove across petitioner’s lawn ramming his garbage cans.” The Court of Appeals “agree[d] with the trial court that respondent ‘should have known’ that throwing what appeared to be a bomb at petitioner’s home and apparently trying to run over petitioner were unwanted contacts,” and, therefore that “a trier of fact reasonably could infer that respondent knew those contacts were unwanted”. The court thus held that a trier of fact was permitted to find “respondent either knew or recklessly disregarded the risk . . . contacts . . . were unwanted.” Reversed and remanded.