Court Opinion

ID: 9609984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:35:06.792971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:13.245081
License: Public Domain

DEITS, C. J.,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s implicit conclusion that petitioner experienced no subjective alarm or apprehension as a result of respondent’s contacts. Because that conclusion is independently dispositive of the appeal, I would not reach *548and I express no view regarding many of the other issues that the majority decides.
It is unnecessary to the decision of this case to resolve the questions of whether any alarm that the contacts could have caused, but did not, would have been “objectively reasonable,” ORS 30.866(l)(b), or whether the contacts entailed a constitutionally proscribable “threat.” See State v. Rangel, 146 Or App 571, 934 P2d 1128, rev allowed 325 Or 367 (1997). I note in particular that I would not reach and, accordingly, do not join in the majority’s disposition of petitioner’s argument that respondent’s alleged earlier declarations of support for violent acts against abortion providers may have bearing on the answers to those questions.
I concur in the result.