Offenses Against Public Order

ORS 166.065
Harassment

(1)

A person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally:

(a)

Harasses or annoys another person by:

(A)

Subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact; or

(B)

Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words or gestures in a manner intended and likely to provoke a violent response;

(b)

Subjects another to alarm by conveying a false report, known by the conveyor to be false, concerning death or serious physical injury to a person, which report reasonably would be expected to cause alarm; or

(c)

Subjects another to alarm by conveying a telephonic, electronic or written threat to inflict serious physical injury on that person or to commit a felony involving the person or property of that person or any member of that person’s family, which threat reasonably would be expected to cause alarm.
(2)(a) A person is criminally liable for harassment if the person knowingly permits any telephone or electronic device under the person’s control to be used in violation of subsection (1) of this section.

(b)

Harassment that is committed under the circumstances described in subsection (1)(c) of this section is committed in either the county in which the communication originated or the county in which the communication was received.

(3)

Harassment is a Class B misdemeanor.

(4)

Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, harassment is a Class A misdemeanor if a person violates:

(a)

Subsection (1)(a)(A) of this section by subjecting another person to offensive physical contact and:

(A)

The offensive physical contact consists of touching the sexual or other intimate parts of the other person; or
(B)(i) The victim of the offense is a family or household member of the person; and

(ii)

The offense is committed in the immediate presence of, or is witnessed by, the person’s or the victim’s minor child or stepchild or a minor child residing within the household of the person or victim; or

(b)

Subsection (1)(c) of this section and:

(A)

The person has a previous conviction under subsection (1)(c) of this section and the victim of the current offense was the victim or a member of the family of the victim of the previous offense;

(B)

At the time the offense was committed, the victim was protected by a stalking protective order, a restraining order as defined in ORS 24.190 (Foreign restraining orders) or any other court order prohibiting the person from contacting the victim;

(C)

At the time the offense was committed, the person reasonably believed the victim to be under 18 years of age and more than three years younger than the person; or
(D)(i) The person conveyed a threat to kill the other person or any member of the family of the other person;

(ii)

The person expressed the intent to carry out the threat; and

(iii)

A reasonable person would believe that the threat was likely to be followed by action.

(5)

The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall classify harassment as described in subsection (4)(a)(B) of this section as a person Class A misdemeanor under the rules of the commission.
(6)(a) As used in this section:

(A)

“Electronic threat” means a threat conveyed by electronic mail, the Internet, a telephone text message or any other transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, cellular system, electromagnetic system or other similar means.

(B)

“Family or household member” has the meaning given that term in ORS 135.230 (Definitions for ORS 135).

(b)

For purposes of subsection (4) of this section, an offense is witnessed if the offense is seen or directly perceived in any other manner by the minor child. [1971 c.743 §223; 1981 c.468 §1; 1985 c.498 §1; 1987 c.806 §3; 1995 c.802 §1; 2001 c.870 §2; 2009 c.783 §1; 2013 c.649 §26; 2017 c.430 §1; 2019 c.304 §3]

Notes of Decisions

“Course of conduct” is a pattern of conduct composed of same or similar acts repeated over a period of time, however short, which establishes a continuity of purpose in the mind of the actor. State v. Sallinger, 11 Or App 592, 504 P2d 1283 (1972)

“Offensive physical contact” includes striking, slapping, shoving, kicking, grabbing and similar acts that are an interference with the contactee, regardless of whether they produce any pain or discomfort. State v. Sallinger, 11 Or App 592, 504 P2d 1283 (1972)

Requirement that person act with specific intent to “harass, annoy or alarm” is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Sallinger, 11 Or App 592, 504 P2d 1283 (1972)

Requirement that person subject another person to “offensive physical contact” is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Sallinger, 11 Or App 592, 504 P2d 1283 (1972)

Prohibition against conduct constituting harassment by “telephone, mail or other form of written communication” is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Zeit, 22 Or App 480, 539 P2d 1130 (1975)

Prohibition against conduct that “alarms or seriously annoys” another person is unconstitutionally vague. State v. Sanderson, 33 Or App 173, 575 P2d 1025 (1978)

Notwithstanding that initial stop of defendant was unlawful under ORS 131.615, such illegality did not render inadmissible defendant’s subsequent behavior, for which he was charged under this section. State v. Gaffney, 36 Or App 105, 583 P2d 582 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Spitting on another can be offensive physical contact within meaning of this section. State v. Keller, 40 Or App 143, 594 P2d 1250 (1979)

Prohibition against communications that are “likely to cause annoyance or alarm” is unconstitutionally vague. State v. Blair, 287 Or 519, 601 P2d 766 (1979)

Publicly insulting another by abusive or obscene words or gestures in manner likely to provoke violent or disorderly response with intent to harass, annoy or alarm, violates section 8, Article I, Oregon Constitution, because it is directed to speech and is not “wholly confined within some historical exception” to that constitutional section. State v. Harrington, 67 Or App 608, 680 P2d 666 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Proscription against “offensive physical contact” is directed toward conduct not speech and does not violate section 8, Article I, Oregon Constitution. State v. Beebe, 67 Or App 738, 680 P2d 11 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Harassment by causing telephone to ring with no communicative purpose, is clear and unambiguous. State v. Lowery, 71 Or App 833, 693 P2d 1343 (1984)

Prohibition against telephonic or written threats, where focus is on effect not speech and effect must be objectively as well as subjectively genuine, is neither constitutionally overbroad nor vague. State v. Moyle, 299 Or 691, 705 P2d 740 (1985)

Telephonic or written threat must be genuine and pose objective risk of breach of peace and failure by defendant to act on threat may suggest it was not genuine, but failure does not compel such conclusion. State v. Mapula, 80 Or App 146, 720 P2d 1336 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Harassment did not occur by phoning of bomb threat when recipient of threat was not actually placed in fear. State v. Wilson, 81 Or App 48, 724 P2d 840 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Where harassment is not lesser included offense under charge of assault in fourth degree, defendant’s conviction for harassment is reversed. State v. Warren, 101 Or App 446, 790 P2d 47 (1990)

Harassment by touching sexual or intimate parts of another is not lesser included offense of sexual abuse in first degree (ORS 163.427). State v. Barnes, 209 Or App 332, 147 P3d 936 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

Prohibition of this section is facially overbroad so as to violate constitutional right of free speech. State v. Johnson, 345 Or 190, 191 P3d 665 (2008)

Source

Last accessed
Mar. 11, 2023

REMOVE ADS