ORS 163.730
Definitions for ORS 30.866 and 163.730 to 163.750


As used in ORS 30.866 (Action for issuance or violation of stalking protective order) and 163.730 (Definitions for ORS 30.866 and 163.730 to 163.750) to 163.750 (Violating a court’s stalking protective order), unless the context requires otherwise:

(1)

“Alarm” means to cause apprehension or fear resulting from the perception of danger.

(2)

“Coerce” means to restrain, compel or dominate by force or threat.

(3)

“Contact” includes but is not limited to:

(a)

Coming into the visual or physical presence of the other person;

(b)

Following the other person;

(c)

Waiting outside the home, property, place of work or school of the other person or of a member of that person’s family or household;

(d)

Sending or making written or electronic communications in any form to the other person;

(e)

Speaking with the other person by any means;

(f)

Communicating with the other person through a third person;

(g)

Committing a crime against the other person;

(h)

Communicating with a third person who has some relationship to the other person with the intent of affecting the third person’s relationship with the other person;

(i)

Communicating with business entities with the intent of affecting some right or interest of the other person;

(j)

Damaging the other person’s home, property, place of work or school;

(k)

Delivering directly or through a third person any object to the home, property, place of work or school of the other person; or

(L)

Service of process or other legal documents unless the other person is served as provided in ORCP 7 or 9.

(4)

“Household member” means any person residing in the same residence as the victim.

(5)

“Immediate family” means father, mother, child, sibling, spouse, grandparent, stepparent and stepchild.

(6)

“Law enforcement officer” means:

(a)

A person employed in this state as a police officer by:

(A)

A county sheriff, constable or marshal;

(B)

A police department established by a university under ORS 352.121 (University police departments and officers) or 353.125 (Creation of police department and commission of police officers); or

(C)

A municipal or state police agency; or

(b)

An authorized tribal police officer as defined in ORS 181A.680 (Definitions for ORS 181A.680 to 181A.692).

(7)

“Repeated” means two or more times.

(8)

“School” means a public or private institution of learning or a child care facility. [1993 c.626 §1; 1995 c.278 §27; 1995 c.353 §1; 2001 c.870 §1; 2007 c.71 §46; 2009 c.359 §2; 2011 c.644 §§24,66,73; 2013 c.180 §§25,26; 2015 c.174 §12]
Note: 163.730 (Definitions for ORS 30.866 and 163.730 to 163.750) to 163.753 (Immunity of officer acting in good faith) were enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 163 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions

Inclusion of potentially protected speech as conduct that court may elect to prohibit by protective stalking order does not make statute facially overbroad. Shook v. Ackert, 152 Or App 224, 952 P2d 1044 (1998)

“Contact” includes acts that, when learned of, give rise to unwanted relationship or association between petitioner and respondent. Boyd v. Essin, 170 Or App 509, 12 P3d 1003 (2000), Sup Ct review denied

Where speech-based contact is combined with nonexpressive conduct, speech-based contact may create alarm without containing unequivocal threat. Crop v. Crop, 220 Or App 592, 188 P3d 364 (2008)

Defendant did not violate victim’s stalking protective order under ORS 163.750 when defendant sent apology letter to victim because letter was “written communication,” not “object,” as terms are used in this section, and letter did not cause victim reasonable apprehension for personal safety as required for violation of ORS 163.750. State v. Meek, 266 Or App 550, 338 P3d 767 (2014)

Law Review Citations

90 OLR 303 (2011)

§§ 163.730 to 163.750

Notes of Decisions

Requirement in force prior to 1995 amendments that conduct be “without legitimate purpose” was unconstitutionally vague. State v. Norris-Romine/Finley, 134 Or App 204, 894 P2d 1221 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Chapter 163

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)


Source
Last accessed
May. 15, 2020