Chapter § 18.4

• Jurisdiction: Oregon

§ 18.4 PARTICULAR APPLICATIONS

§ 18.4-1 Disorderly Conduct

Former ORS 166.025(1)(e) (2005) (repealed by Or Laws 2012, ch 35, § 1), which criminalized intentionally causing, or recklessly creating a risk of causing, "public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm" by "[c]ongregat[ing] with other persons in a public place and refus[ing] to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse" violated Article I, sections 8 and 26, of the Oregon Constitution. That subsection of the disorderly conduct statute was facially overbroad, and thus struck down, because it prohibited "congregating with others in a manner that does not cause harm, even when coupled with one of the mental states proscribed in the statute," which "is conduct that Article I, sections 8 and 26, protects." Ausmus, 336 Or at 507-08 (The statute "includes conduct and thought that does not produce a harmful effect. Article I, sections 8 and 26, protect individuals from that form of governmental restraint.").

§ 18.4-2 Soliciting Financial Support

"[A] total ban on soliciting financial support from persons in their homes (either on the doorstep, by telephone or by post) . . . implicates Article I, section 26," of the Oregon Constitution as well as Article I, section 8 (free expression). City of Hillsboro v. Purcell, 306 Or 547, 556 n 9, 761 P2d 510 (1988) (a law prohibiting door-to-door sales on private property was overbroad under Article I, section 8).

§ 18.4-3 Trespass

Article I, section 26, of the Oregon Constitution does not protect "a right to disrupt possession of the private property of another, at least when . . . the private property is not open to public use." Huffman & Wright Logging Co. v. Wade, 317 Or 445, 459, 857 P2d 101 (1993). The right to petition government in section 26 also does not protect trespassory acts, at least when the intended recipients of the "petition" were the news media and a logging company. Huffman, 317 Or at 459-60 ("The intention ultimately to affect government policy is not sufficient, by itself, to invoke the protection of Article I, section 26.").

Article I, section 26, does protect a right to assemble for deliberation about issues affecting Oregonians and for voicing political protests on public property; that right, however, does not prohibit a prosecution for criminal trespass when protesters violate a rule that closed a public space for all purposes. State v. Babson, 249 Or App 278, 307, 279 P3d 222, aff'd, 355 Or 383, 326 P3d 559 (2014).

§ 18.4-4 Public...