Offenses Against the State and Public Justice

ORS 162.247
Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer


(1)

A person commits the crime of interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer if the person, knowing that another person is a peace officer or a parole and probation officer as defined in ORS 181A.355 (Definitions for ORS 181A.355 to 181A.670):

(a)

Intentionally acts in a manner that prevents, or attempts to prevent, a peace officer or parole and probation officer from performing the lawful duties of the officer with regards to another person; or

(b)

Refuses to obey a lawful order by the peace officer or parole and probation officer.

(2)

Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer is a Class A misdemeanor.

(3)

This section does not apply in situations in which the person is engaging in:

(a)

Activity that would constitute resisting arrest under ORS 162.315 (Resisting arrest); or

(b)

Passive resistance. [1997 c.719 §1; 1999 c.1040 §7; 2005 c.668 §1]
Note: 162.247 (Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer) was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 162 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions

Speech alone does not constitute acting in manner that prevents or attempts to prevent peace officer from performing duty. State v. Lam, 176 Or App 149, 29 P3d 1206 (2001)

"Lawful order" is not unconstitutionally vague term. State v. Andre, 178 Or App 566, 38 P3d 949 (2002)

Prohibition against refusing to obey lawful order is not facially overbroad violation of constitutional right of free speech or freedom of assembly. State v. Illig-Renn, 341 Or 228, 142 P3d 62 (2006)

Prohibition against refusing to obey lawful order is not facially vague, vague for conferring uncontrolled discretion to punish or vague for failure to give fair warning. State v. Illig-Renn, 341 Or 228, 142 P3d 62 (2006)

Unlawful police conduct in initiating encounter does not prevent order issued during encounter from being lawful order. State v. Neill, 216 Or App 499, 173 P3d 1262 (2007), Sup Ct review denied

To commit crime of interfering with peace officer or parole and probation officer, person does not need to have culpable mental state with respect to lawfulness of police order. State v. Ruggles, 238 Or App 86, 242 P3d 643 (2010), Sup Ct review denied

Defendant, who did not obey officers' commands but instead ignored officers and continued working on vehicle, was not "engaging in passive resistance," which means engaging in acts or techniques of noncooperation commonly associated with government protest or civil disobedience. State v. Patnesky, 265 Or App 356, 335 P3d 331 (2014)

Refusal to obey officer's lawful order requires defendant to consciously intend to disobey officer's lawful order, not merely fail to disobey order. State v. Enyeart, 266 Or App 763, 340 P3d 57 (2014)

"Passive resistance" means noncooperation for any reason with lawful order of peace officer in manner that does not involve violence or active measures. State v. McNally, 361 Or 314, 392 P3d 721 (2017); State v. Washington, 286 Or App 650, 401 P3d 297 (2017)

State may bring alternative charges of resisting arrest and interfering with peace officer against defendant based on same acts but may not convict defendant of both resisting arrest and interfering with peace officer. State v. Garcia, 361 Or 672, 399 P3d 444 (2017)

When state brings alternative charges of resisting arrest and interfering with peace officer against defendant based on same acts, trial court should submit both charges to jury with appropriate instruction or verdict form. State v. Garcia, 361 Or 672, 399 P3d 444 (2017)

Chapter 162

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021