A. Z. v. Lange

To qualify as unwanted, expressive contacts must present a level of threat that "instills in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, [that] is unequivocal, and [that] is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts." (quoting State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303, 977 P2d 379 (1999)).

Respondent appealed the entry of a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) under ORS 30.866, arguing the judgment was unsupported by evidence.

Respondent physically abused Petitioner in 2023 and subsequently harassed them through social media, text messages, and phone calls, even mailing a package to Petitioner’s Oregon address. After Petitioner obtained a temporary SPO, the conduct escalated. In one evening, Respondent called Petitioner 150 times, saying: “[Y]ou can go shove that [SPO] up your ass. I’m not gonna stop and I’m never going to stop.”

Petitioner’s testimony established that “respondent’s nonexpressive contact gave rise to petitioner’s objectively reasonable alarm.”

To qualify as unwanted, expressive contacts must present a level of threat that “instills in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, [that] is unequivocal, and [that] is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts.” State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303, 977 P2d 379 (1999). Although Respondent was living in another state at the time, when considered in context, their message: “it’s not gonna end well for [Petitioner] and that [I'm] not gonna stop until [I'm] in jail,” constituted a threat of imminent serious physical harm, sufficient to justify SPO issuance.

“Affirmed.”