Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer
Source:
Section 162.247 — Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors162.html.
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 v. Bledsoe, 311 Or App 183, 487 P3d 862 (2021), Sup Ct review denied
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)
As used in this provision, “prevents” means physical action taken that keeps something from happening, and “attempts to prevent” means physical actions that do not completely stop officers from performing lawful duties but constitute substantial step towards that end, and trier of fact could conclude that defendant continuing to approach and circle officers arresting other person, after repeated warnings to stop, attempted to prevent arrest. State v. Scheirman, 295 Or App 238, 433 P3d 761 (2018)
Passive resistance is not element of crime of interfering with peace officer. State v. Moravek, 297 Or App 763, 444 P3d 521 (2019), Sup Ct review denied
When officer made initial unlawful seizure of defendant, officer-safety doctrine did not permit officer to impose more stringent restraint to effectuate unlawful seizure. State v. Kreis, 365 Or 659, 451 P3d 954 (2019)
For purposes of plain-error review, where person is already walking and continues walking after being ordered to stop, whether person is engaged in “passive resistance” is not obvious and is reasonably in dispute. State v. Swartz, 302 Or App 93, 460 P3d 124 (2020), Sup Ct review denied
Up to date