Courtemanche v. Milligan

Respondent, a mail carrier, appeals, challenging a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) obtained by petitioner, whose residence is on respondent’s mail delivery route. On de novo review, Hanzo v. deParrie, 152 Or App 525, 537, 953 P2d 1130 (1998), rev den, 328 Or 418 (1999), we determine that respondent’s contacts with petitioner did not warrant the issuance of an SPO. In particular, petitioner failed to prove that respondent engaged in repeated contacts with petitioner either knowing that those contacts were “unwanted” or with an “aware [ness] of a substantial and unjustifiable risk…