Background
J. C. H. began dating Sievers’s former girlfriend. After several incidents—including Sievers placing rotting fish in furniture delivered to J. C. H.’s apartment—J. C. H. discovered a GPS tracker on his vehicle. The tracker was associated with Sievers’s email address, although Sievers denied placing it there.
Three days after the tracker was discovered, Sievers drove up to J. C. H. at Boiler Bay State Park, got out, and approached him. J. C. H. considered the approach threatening in light of their history, but the trial court found that Sievers said nothing threatening. The trial court nevertheless entered a stalking protective order based on the GPS tracker and the park encounter as two qualifying unwanted contacts.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed. To support a stalking protective order under ORS 30.866, each of at least two unwanted contacts must cause alarm that is objectively reasonable, meaning apprehension or fear arising from a perceived threat of physical injury. Taken together, the contacts also must make an objectively reasonable person apprehensive about personal safety.
The court accepted the trial court’s finding that Sievers placed the GPS tracker, but held that the evidence did not establish two qualifying contacts. Sievers had never acted violently toward J. C. H., threatened him with violence, or been shown to have a history of physical violence. Although approaching J. C. H. at the park may have been ill-advised and unwanted, it was not objectively reasonable to perceive the encounter as threatening physical injury, even when considered alongside the tracker and the parties’ history.
Key Takeaways
- An unwanted or harassing contact qualifies for a stalking protective order only if it objectively supports a perception of threatened physical injury.
- Criminal, inappropriate, or disturbing conduct does not necessarily establish the physical-safety threat required by Oregon’s stalking statute.
- The Boiler Bay encounter could not serve as the second qualifying contact because Sievers made no threat and the surrounding circumstances did not objectively indicate a risk of physical injury.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the distinction between harassment and conduct that objectively threatens physical safety. Even troubling behavior such as covert vehicle tracking does not allow a court to treat every later unwanted encounter as a qualifying stalking contact without evidence of a threat or risk of physical injury.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.