<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 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
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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">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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times","serif";color:black">(3) D.W.C. v. Carter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times","serif";color:black">Date Filed: 02-20-2014<br>
Case #: A149922<br>
Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Sercombe, J.; and Hadlock, J.<br>
Full Text Opinion: <a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A149922.pdf">
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A149922.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times","serif";color:black">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times","serif";color:black">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times","serif";color:black">[Summarized by: Steven Mastanduno]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>