Committee hears bill to create civil harassment restraining order; supporters cite gaps in current law

Chair Prozanski opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 389 on Feb. 25 in the Senate Committee on Judiciary. The bill, sponsored in committee by Senator Hayden, would create a civil harassment restraining order and establish procedures, standards and timelines for seeking that protection. Under the proposal, a petitioner would show by a preponderance of the evidence—through a sworn petition—that the respondent engaged in harassment within the past 180 days, describe the nature and dates of the harassment and establish a reasonable apprehension for personal safety.

The bill would rely on statutory definitions already in Oregon law for harassment and would specify court rules for form and service of orders, the respondent’s right to a hearing, judicial review, scope and modification of orders, and procedures for remote appearances if the petitioner fears for their safety. It assigns county sheriffs responsibility to serve orders and to enter data into the law enforcement data system. The bill also sets venue as the petitioner’s county of residence, the respondent’s county of residence, or the county in which the harassment occurred.

Senator Hayden, the bill sponsor, told the committee this is intended as a “generalized harassment solution” for situations that fall outside existing criminal stalking or aggravated harassment statutes—examples she cited include school bullying and social‑media harassment where the parties are not in an intimate relationship or where the conduct does not meet felony thresholds. “We are giving a voice to the people that kind of feel they fall outside the box of our 3 current statutes on this,” Hayden said, noting that petitioners would still be required to attest under oath and meet the preponderance standard.

Resident Emily Soules described a prolonged neighbor dispute involving repeated unwanted contact, property interference and alleged surveillance after she moved into a Clackamas County home. Soules said she consulted local law enforcement and was told much of the conduct was “civil” and not prosecutable under criminal statutes. “We were left basically stranded without anything,” she said, and said she ultimately sold the house at a loss because Oregon law did not address her experience.

Aaron Knott of the Oregon Judicial Department said the department was neutral and focused on mechanics and workload. Knott noted the bill would create another type of protective order alongside existing ones (stalking, elder abuse, assault protective orders) and that harassment is common; he warned the courts could see a significant number of filings because offensive words and minor offensive physical contacts are relatively frequent. He explained differences between stalking orders and the proposed harassment order—stalking often requires a pattern of unwanted contacts, whereas the proposed order could be based on a single harassment incident proven by preponderance of the evidence.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about the civil rather than criminal nature of the proposed order and enforcement limits of civil orders. Chair Prozanski and others emphasized that a civil protective order would give petitioners an avenue for relief without converting the matter immediately into a criminal prosecution. The committee closed the hearing on SB 389 with no immediate action taken.

The testimony in the hearing ranged from procedural questions about court processes to personal examples of conduct that petitioners said current law does not adequately address. No amendment or motion was adopted on the bill in this hearing; the committee recorded the public testimony and discussion for further consideration.