“This Is Not Stalking”: One Oklahoma Mother’s Exhausting Battle Against Her Neighbors—and the Police Who Allegedly Took Their Side

Claremore, Oklahoma, is the kind of place where neighborly disputes are supposed to stay small. A dispute over a property line, some loud music, or kids cutting across lawns. The sort of thing that might end with a terse conversation or a call to the local police, who then mediate and everyone moves on. But for Shirley Melissa Spahr, a mother and nursing student living on 17th Street, the ordinary machinery of small-town conflict resolution allegedly broke down in spectacular fashion. What started as reports of littering, harassment, and a vehicle incident involving her young child turned into a multi-year ordeal that has now landed in federal court as a sweeping civil rights lawsuit.

In a 47-page complaint filed on May 21, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Case No. 4:26-cv-00305-JDR-SH), Spahr accuses the City of Claremore and 11 current or former members of the Claremore Police Department of orchestrating a “continuous, ongoing, and uninterrupted campaign of unconstitutional retaliation, selective enforcement, and supervisory-directed denial of police protection.” The suit, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, invokes the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It is not a vague grievance. It is dense with specific dates, case numbers, body-worn camera excerpts, court transcripts, and internal communications that paint a picture of a department that allegedly chose sides in a neighbor feud and then used its authority to punish the woman who kept complaining about it.

This is the story of how a protective order, meant to bring peace, allegedly became the spark for something darker: institutional defensiveness, selective blindness, and the slow erosion of trust in local law enforcement.

The Feud That Wouldn't End

The conflict began in earnest in 2023. Spahr reported a pattern of behavior from neighbors Justin and Jennifer Channel: trash thrown onto her property (fast-food bags, beer cans, styrofoam cups), verbal harassment, and more alarming incidents, including a vehicle pursuit that involved Spahr and her then-three-year-old son. Security footage captured much of the alleged misconduct.

In October 2023, the Rogers County District Court granted Spahr two emergency Stalking Protective Orders against the Channels. Reciprocal petitions filed by Jennifer Channel were denied. At this point, a neutral observer might expect the police to enforce the orders evenly and let the courts handle the rest. According to the complaint, that is not what happened.

Instead, Spahr's subsequent calls for service were allegedly met with minimal effort. Complaints were logged as "Citizen Assists" or "Field Interviews"—internal notations that rarely lead to meaningful enforcement or prosecutorial action. Meanwhile, the police allegedly began assisting the Channels in building a case against Spahr herself.

Body Cams as Evidence—and Accusation

The complaint's most compelling element is its reliance on the department's own body-worn camera footage. These recordings, which officers wear to promote accountability, allegedly capture the opposite in this case.

Lt. Doug Woodward, a patrol lieutenant at the time, is accused of issuing internal directives that effectively deprioritized Spahr's complaints. On BWC, he reportedly described her reports as "one-sided" and not credible. He allegedly helped Jennifer Channel pursue a conflicting protective order, including facilitating the release of Spahr's unredacted decade-long police records—complete with personal identifiers—to the very people subject to her active protective orders.

Officer Scott Mittelstedt allegedly led a felony stalking investigation against Spahr (Case No. 24-009638) initiated shortly after Spahr filed formal grievances against the department. Body cam footage purportedly shows him interrogating Spahr for 27 minutes on her own property without disclosing the investigation, coaching the Channels on statements to emphasize "fear," and characterizing routine activities like walking on public roads, installing security cameras, or painting doors as "stalking-like behavior."

Deputy Chief Matt Hart is quoted in internal discussions allegedly referring to Spahr as "fucking nuts."

Other officers, including Logan McQuaig (who allegedly entered Spahr's driveway without a warrant to photograph her truck during a vandalism probe against her) and Bobby Hagen (accused of sharing investigation details with Channel), face similar claims of disparate treatment.

City Manager John Feary reportedly promised Spahr an investigation involving "me and a bunch of lawyers" but provided no updates. Communication restrictions were imposed after her grievances.

Judicial Rebukes and Alleged Continued Retaliation

State courts provided Spahr with significant vindication. In June 2024, a Rogers County judge denied Jennifer Channel’s protective order petition against Spahr (PO-2024-198), sustained a demurrer to the evidence, and stated on the record: “No, ma’am, it is not stalking.” The court later deemed the petition frivolous and awarded Spahr $3,450 in attorney’s fees. Jennifer Channel testified that police came to her door “with a stack” of documents and encouraged the filing. Spahr’s own protective orders were extended to 2028.

Yet according to the complaint—and Spahr’s more recent communications—the alleged pattern of retaliation did not stop with the state court rulings. In August 2025, after the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights Enforcement (OCRE) forwarded Spahr’s complaint to the Claremore Police Department, she claims the department began conducting midnight patrols on her street. Spahr says she has captured these patrols on her own security cameras, while the CPD Records Department responded that there were no active calls for service corresponding to the dates and times she requested.

The alleged surveillance reportedly intensified immediately after the federal complaint became public. On May 22, 2026—the same day the filing appeared on PACER—Spahr reports that two CPD patrol units were parked around the corner of her street for five straight days, with a third unit positioned a block away. During this period, officers stopped her son for speeding. “I’ve lived on this neighborhood for 17 years,” Spahr noted; “never have I seen 1 unit, let alone 2 watching speeding vehicles for more than a couple of hours.”

Spahr has expressed hesitation about publicly releasing the footage while the federal litigation remains active, stating she is concerned that doing so could affect her case—the last significant avenue she sees for resolution.

The Constitutional Questions

Spahr’s lawsuit raises core issues about the limits of police discretion in small towns:

• First Amendment Retaliation: Her complaints about selective enforcement and public criticism allegedly triggered adverse actions without probable cause.
• Fourth Amendment: Alleged unreasonable searches, such as warrantless entry onto her property.
• Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection (“Class of One”): Spahr claims she was treated worse than similarly situated individuals, including her husband Jon, who engaged in the same activities but faced no investigation.
• Monell Municipal Liability: The suit alleges that customs, policies, supervisory failures, and ratification by city leadership enabled the alleged pattern.

Spahr seeks damages, injunctive relief to reform department practices, and attorney fees. The human toll, she alleges, includes emotional distress, impacts on her education, and ongoing fear.

Claremore PD in Context

This case does not emerge from a vacuum. Public records show the Claremore Police Department has faced prior scrutiny, including questions about officer credibility, evidence handling, and transparency in Rogers County cases. In small communities across Eastern Oklahoma, where departments are often under-resourced and closely intertwined with local power structures, the risk of bias in neighbor disputes is real. Body cameras, intended as a check on power, can become double-edged when the footage itself becomes evidence of alleged misconduct.

The department’s official website emphasizes community safety and professionalism. But cases like this test whether those ideals hold when a resident becomes a persistent critic.

What This Reveals About Small-Town Policing

At its heart, Spahr’s lawsuit is about the gap between the ideal of equal protection and the reality of discretionary policing. In high-conflict neighbor disputes, officers must exercise judgment. But when that judgment appears one-sided, documented on their own cameras, and contradicted by court findings, it raises profound questions about accountability.

For residents of Claremore and similar towns across the region, the case is a reminder that complaining about the police can carry risks. For reformers, it highlights the need for robust internal affairs processes, transparent complaint handling, and training on protective orders and retaliation risks.

As the federal case proceeds, discovery will likely bring more BWC footage, internal emails, and depositions into the public record. Whether it results in policy changes, settlements, or a trial remains to be seen.

EastOklahoma.com will continue to follow developments in Spahr v. City of Claremore et al. This is the kind of story that matters in Eastern Oklahoma: not flashy national headlines, but the quiet erosion—or defense—of rights in our own backyards.

Key Sources:

• U.S. District Court Complaint (May 21, 2026)
• Rogers County District Court records
• Claremore PD website and prior local reporting

All allegations in the complaint remain unproven. The defendants have the right to respond fully in court.