[DV_listserv] Stalking case

[Domestic Violence issues]

This case has a good discussion of previous Stalking cases and does a nice job of laying out the standards for qualifying communicative vs. non-communicative contact.


(3) D.W.C. v. Carter

Date Filed: 02-20-2014
Case #: A149922
Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Sercombe, J.; and Hadlock, J.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A149922.pdf

CIVIL STALKING PROTECTIVE ORDER: Under ORS 30.866, a stalking protective order requires a petitioner have subjective alarm, that alarm to be objectively reasonable, and that alarm to be the result of multiple qualifying contacts.

D.W.C. appealed the trial court's dismissal of two permanent stalking protective orders. From late July till early August, 2011, D.W.C. was harassed by Breck Carter (Carter) and Robert Bosket (Bosket). D.W.C. petitioned for permanent stalking protective orders (SPO) against Carter and Bosket, both of which were denied by the trial court for insufficient qualifying contacts. An SPO requires multiple qualifying contacts, subjective alarm, and that alarm to be objectively reasonable. Contacts are divided into expressive, which involve speech, and nonexpressive, which are physical and carry greater weight. Several incidents occurred between D.W.C. and Carter, including numerous expressive contacts involving homophobic slurs and several nonexpressive contacts involving physical intimidation. There were two contacts between D.W.C. and Bosket; one in which Bosket yelled at and antagonized D.W.C., and another in which Bosket forcibly entered D.W.C.'s apartment and choked him, resulting in Bosket's arrest. On appeal, D.W.C. argued that contacts with both Carter and Bosket were sufficient for an SPO. The Court held the multiple expressive and nonexpressive contacts between D.W.C. and Carter were sufficient to support the issuance of an SPO, but only the nonexpressive contact with Bosket qualified as a contact for an SPO, failing to meet the multiple qualifying contacts requirement. Judgment in A149922 reversed and remanded; judgment in A149923 affirmed.

[Summarized by: Steven Mastanduno]



*****CONFIDENTIALITY  NOTICE*****

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. 

************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/dv_listserv/attachments/20140224/6d1f25cc/attachment.html>