<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
{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><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">This opinion reiterates the high burden for obtaining a SPO founded on speech/communication-based contacts.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:black">C.J.L. v. Langford</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:black">Date Filed: 04-23-2014<br>
Case #: A149753<br>
Duncan, J. for the Court; Wollheim, J.; & Lagesen, J.<br>
Full Text Opinion: <a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A149753.pdf">
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A149753.pdf</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:black">CIVIL STALKING PROTECTIVE ORDER: In order for an Stalking Protective Order to be issued, under ORS 30.866, a petitioner must show that speech-based contacts instill a fear of imminent and serious personal violence
from the speaker, are unequivocal, and are objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts, such that the addressee believes the actor intends and is able to carry them out. Threats that are hyperbole, rhetorical excesses, and impotent expressions of anger
or frustration are insufficient, even if they alarm the addressee.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:black">C.J.L. and Langford were in a relationship which produced a child. C.J.L. sought a Stalking Protective Order (SPO), under ORS 30.866, after Langford allegedly, on three occasions, yelled at C.J.L. and threatened
to use the judicial process, contact police, and contact DHS regarding their child’s welfare. Langford claimed that the contacts were not unwanted, but if unwanted, did not constitute the type of threat required to satisfy the statutory requirements for an
SPO. The SPO was granted and Langford appealed. To obtain an SPO, C.J.L. had to show: (1) intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct by Langford against C.J.L. that constitutes repeated and unwanted contact; (2) the C.J.L. was subjectively alarmed or coerced
and that the alarm or coercion was objectively reasonable for a person in C.J.L.’s situation; and (3) that the contact reasonably caused C.J.L. to fear for her personal safety.
<b>For speech-based contact, the communication must instill fear in C.J.L. of imminent and personal violence from Langford which is unequivocal and objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts.
</b>The Court held that Langford’s speech-based contacts with C.J.L. did not violate ORS 30.866 because Respondent did not threaten violence; the contacts were impotent expressions of anger or frustration or threats of lawful means of dispute resolution. Reversed.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:black">[Summarized by: Erin Milos]</span><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>