Bachmann v. Maudlin

Respondent appeals from the trial court’s entry of a stalking protective order (SPO). He contends that the court erred in issuing the SPO, because the contacts upon which the SPO was based were expressive and none “can be deemed to be an unequivocal threat of imminent physical harm.” We agree that the court erred in issuing the SPO and, therefore, reverse.

Under ORS 30.866(1), a person may obtain an SPO against another person if:

“(a) The person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engages in repeated and unwanted contact with the other person or a member of that person’s immediate family or…