Background
H.F. and Keith Woods were neighbors in a rural area of Oregon whose families had a hostile relationship and wished to avoid contact with one another. Prior to the two-year statutory period, Woods threatened the wife of petitioner’s cousin by running toward her with a chainsaw, an incident that was communicated to H.F.
Within the two-year period preceding the petition, three incidents occurred: Woods swerved his vehicle toward H.F.; Woods removed a piece of H.F.’s mail from her mailbox, wrote “slow down, speed is not your friend” on it, drove over the envelope with tire marks, and returned it to the mailbox; and Woods dug holes and placed boulders and rocks in a shared public access road that H.F. used. H.F. petitioned for a stalking protective order (SPO) under ORS 30.866(1).
The trial court entered a permanent SPO, finding sufficient evidence of multiple unwanted contacts that gave rise to objectively reasonable alarm and apprehension for personal safety. Woods appealed, arguing the contacts did not meet statutory requirements and that a permanent order was not warranted.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the SPO, holding that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court’s findings. To obtain an SPO, a petitioner must prove by preponderance of the evidence: (1) two or more unwanted contacts within the past two years; (2) each contact giving rise to subjective alarm that was objectively reasonable; and (3) the contacts taken together creating objectively reasonable apprehension regarding personal safety.
The court rejected Woods’ argument that the three incidents did not constitute qualifying contacts. Although the note on the mail did not convey a threat meeting the criminal threatening standard, the trial court properly considered the physical act of tampering with petitioner’s mail in the context of the parties’ volatile history and Woods’ willingness to disregard boundaries. The swerving of his vehicle toward H.F. constituted one qualifying contact, and the mail tampering, combined with obstruction of the shared road, provided the requisite two or more contacts.
Viewing the contacts in context of the parties’ entire history, including Woods’ prior threat with a chainsaw and his violation of a temporary stalking order, the court concluded that the permanent SPO was appropriate. The contacts taken together could reasonably cause H.F. to fear for her personal safety.
Key Takeaways
- A “contact” under ORS 30.866(1) can include almost any interaction—physical, visual, spoken, or written—and need not constitute a criminal threat.
- Contacts must be evaluated in the context of the parties’ complete history and relationship to determine whether they give rise to objectively reasonable alarm.
- Property tampering, vehicle intimidation, and roadway obstruction can all constitute qualifying contacts for stalking protective order purposes when viewed as part of a broader pattern.
- Prior incidents outside the statutory two-year window and violations of temporary protective orders inform the reasonableness of the petitioner’s apprehension.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that stalking protective order statutes cast a wider net than traditional criminal threatening laws. Courts are permitted to consider non-threatening conduct—such as property tampering and physical obstruction—as qualifying “contacts” when they demonstrate an intentional disregard for boundaries and occur within a context of hostility. This gives petitioners meaningful protection against harassment campaigns that may not rise to the level of explicit threats but create genuine fear through cumulative intimidating conduct.
The opinion also emphasizes that context is critical: the same conduct might be innocent in isolation but constitute stalking when viewed as part of an ongoing pattern. This approach recognizes that harassment often operates through incremental escalation rather than isolated dramatic incidents, allowing courts to intervene before behavior reaches criminal levels.