Offenses Against General Welfare and Animals

ORS 167.222
Frequenting a place where controlled substances are used


A person commits the offense of frequenting a place where controlled substances are used if the person keeps, maintains, frequents, or remains at a place, while knowingly permitting persons to use controlled substances in such place or to keep or sell them in violation of ORS 475.005 (Definitions for ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.752 to 475.980) to 475.285 (Short title) and 475.752 (Prohibited acts generally) to 475.980 (Affirmative defense to ORS 475.969, 475.971, 475.975 (1) and 475.976 (1)).


Frequenting a place where controlled substances are used is a Class A misdemeanor.


As used in this section, “frequents” means repeatedly or habitually visits, goes to or resorts to. [1971 c.743 §277; 1974 c.43 §1; 1977 c.745 §35; 1979 c.641 §1; 1991 c.67 §41; 1993 c.469 §3; 1995 c.440 §16; 1999 c.1051 §160; 2017 c.21 §47]

Notes of Decisions

Evidence that defendant entered residence five minutes before police arrived, for purpose of negotiating repair of car, that large quantity of hashish was contained in covered boxes on table within residence, and that defendant suspected that plastic bag on table did contain drugs, was insufficient to show that defendant knowingly remained in a place resorted to by drug users. State v. West, 31 Or App 1177, 572 P2d 349 (1977)

This section, in prohibiting "frequenting a place where controlled substances are used" is not unconstitutionally vague under U.S. or Oregon Constitution. State v. Pyritz, 90 Or App 601, 752 P2d 1310 (1988)

Evidence that defendant was asleep in his underwear on second floor of house, that house was heavily fortified, that drugs had been sold in house and that another person was found flushing drugs down toilet on first floor while defendant slept upstairs constituted probable cause that defendant remained in house and permitted drug use on premises within meaning of this section. State v. Anderson, 95 Or App 178, 768 P2d 427 (1989)

Frequenting place where controlled substances are used is not lesser included offense of unlawful possession of controlled substance. State v. Martz, 103 Or App 105, 795 P2d 616 (1990)

Commission of violation requires that premises were location where principal or substantial purpose was commercial sale or use of illegal drugs and that defendant had legal authority over location where illegal drugs were sold, had actual knowledge of sale, and permitted sale. State v. Van Osdol, 290 Or App 902, 417 P3d 488 (2018)

Chapter 167

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Exemption of nuisance laws from constitutional requirement for payments based on government regulations restricting use of property, (2001) Vol 49, p 284

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021