State v. Ryan

In order to challenge Oregon’s stalking protective order statute on free speech grounds, a defendant must first successfully challenge the underlying protective order.

The State appealed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of defendant’s two stalking protective order (SPO) convictions. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions based on State v. Ryan, which held that the SPO statute was overbroad and concluded that Article I, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution protects communications that do not involve an imminent or serious threat of physical harm. The Oregon Supreme Court found that the crime of which defendant was convicted, ORS 163.750, prohibits conduct which is already prohibited by the SPO. Thus, the Court held that a defendant who wishes to challenge a conviction under ORS 163.750 must first attack the validity of the stalking protective order on free speech grounds. Since the defendant in this case conceded that the order was lawful, his speech was not protected. Judgment of the Court of Appeals reversed, judgment of the trial court affirmed.