<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText> D.A. v. White<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Date Filed: 12/05/2012<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Case #: A149377<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Hadlock, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; and Sercombe, J.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/opinions/A149377.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/opinions/A149377.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Civil Stalking Protective Order: Under ORS 163.738, the "official<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>duties" exceptions of ORS 163.755(1)(c) will not apply, effectively<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>barring the use of a work place incident from counting towards the<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>issuance of a stalking protective order, if the respondent "intended"<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>to intimidate the petitioner with the workplace incident.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Mr. White, Respondent, appealed the trial court’s granting of a<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>stalking protective order (SPO) under ORS 163.738. White claimed that<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>the trial court erred in issuing the SPO because both parties were<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>employees at the Drug Enforcement Agency at the time of the incident.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Therefore, according to White, the “official duties” section of ORS<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>163.755(1)(c) should apply and bar the issuance of the SPO. The Court<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>of Appeals held that if White’s intent was to “intimidate” D.A.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>(Petitioner) while at work, the “official duties” section would not<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>apply. Since the trial court found that White did intend to intimidate<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>D.A., they properly held that the official duties section did not<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>apply and the SPO could be issued. Affirmed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>[Summarized by Raun Atkinson]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>3. V.A.N. v. Parsons<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Date Filed: 12/05/2012<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Case #: A150909<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Hadlock, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; and Sercombe, J.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/opinions/A150909.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/opinions/A150909.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Civil Stalking Protective Order: ORS 30.866 requires that evidence in<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>support of a stalking order prove that the contact reveals an<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>unequivocal threat that instills a fear of serious and physical injury<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>from the speaker that is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>acts. Without other evidence, a threat to "confront" a person does not<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>involve violence or other unlawful acts.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Parsons challenged the sufficiency of a permanent stalking order that<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>was entered against him based on numerous text messages sent to V.A.N.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>over several months. The trial court found that V.A.N. felt physically<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>threatened because Parsons knew where she lived, and in one of his<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>last messages, Parsons threatened to “confront” V.A.N. at home and at<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>work. At the hearing, Parsons moved to dismiss the case, challenging<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>the sufficiency of the evidence under ORS 30.866, claiming (1) he was<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>unaware that his contacts were unwanted, (2) the contacts did not<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>instill fear of imminent and serious personal violence, (3) the<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>contacts did not involve unequivocal threats likely to be followed up<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>by unlawful acts, and (4) V.A.N.’s alarm was not objectively<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>reasonable. The trial court denied the motion, and Parsons appealed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>The Court of Appeals reversed based on State v. Rangel, holding that<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>the dispositive requirement for a stalking order is that the contacts<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>must involve unequivocal threats that are objectively likely to be<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>followed up by unlawful acts, and the text messages in this case do<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>not meet that standard. There is no evidence that Parsons’ threat to<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>“confront” V.A.N. would involve violence or other “unlawful acts.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Reversed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>[Summarized by Katherine Yancey]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div>
<DIV>
*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
************************************<BR>
</DIV></body></html>