Chapter 181

181.010

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Access to confidential crime records and reports by Oregon Law Enforcement Council, (1974) Vol 36, p 782; Oregon Liquor Control Commission, as a law enforcement agency, (1974) Vol 36, p 1066; fingerprinting of persons arrested for traffic infractions, (1977) Vol 38, p 960

181.066

See also annotations under ORS 181.065 in permanent edition.

181.085

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Public interest advanced and minimal nature of intrusion make blood sampling of certain convicted felons reasonable search and seizure under federal constitution. Rise v. State of Oregon, 59 F3d 1556 (9th Cir. 1995)

181.175

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Basis for figuring funds allocated to footpaths and bicycle trails, (1972) Vol 36, p 1

181.290

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Transfer of petitioner “for purposes of morale” was valid transfer, and thus petitioner’s refusal to accept transfer constituted “insubordination” within meaning of this section. Potts v. State Police, 31 Or App 173, 570 P2d 385 (1977) Sup Ct review denied

181.400

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Statute’s prohibition against political activity by members of state police violated Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. Oregon State Police Assn. v. State of Oregon, 308 Or 531, 783 P2d 7 (1989)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 27 WLR 381 (1991)

181.511 to 181.550

See also annotations under ORS 181.510 to 181.540 in permanent edition.

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Access to confidential crime records and reports by Oregon Law Enforcement Council, (1974) Vol 36, p 782

181.530

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Advance notice of temporary releases, (1975) Vol 37, p 943

181.575

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 41 WLR 941 (2005)

181.585

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Person has federal due process right to notice and evidentiary hearing prior to determination regarding predatory sex offender status. Noble v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 485, 964 P2d 990 (1998)

Retroactive application of predatory sex offender registration and notification statutes does not violate Oregon Constitution protection against ex post facto laws (section 21, Article I), double jeopardy (section 12, Article I) or cruel and unusual punishment (section 16, Article I). Meadows v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 181 Or App 565, 47 P3d 506 (2002), Sup Ct review denied

Procedure to determine whether person is predatory sex offender must provide for considering evidence of offender’s current behavior and characteristics in making determination whether offender exhibits characteristics showing tendency to victimize or injure others. V.L.Y. v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 338 Or 44, 106 P3d 145 (2005)

181.586

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Mere designation of person as predatory sex offender, without further action, does not constitute additional punishment for ex post facto purposes. Frey v. Board of Parole, 152 Or App 462, 950 P2d 418 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

Giving notice of predatory sex offender to community does not impose sufficient affirmative disability to render statute punitive in nature, therefore constitutional protections against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment do not apply. Meadows v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 181 Or App 565, 47 P3d 506 (2002), Sup Ct review denied

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 35 WLR 83 (1999)

181.587

NOTES OF DECISIONS

181.595

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Registration requirement under 1995 version of statute was not ex post facto law under Oregon or United States Constitution. State v. MacNab, 334 Or 469, 51 P3d 1249 (2002)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 35 WLR 83 (1999)

181.596

NOTES OF DECISIONS

“Change” of residence occurs at time sex offender departs from old residence. State v. Cox, 219 Or App 319, 182 P3d 259 (2008)

Person who reports is not required to provide proof of address to comply with reporting requiremcent. State v. Depeche, 242 Or App 147, 252 P3d 861 (2011)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 35 WLR 83 (1999)

181.597

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Requirement that listed person notify authorities of change in residence applies to person moving out of state. State v. Wigglesworth, 186 Or App 374, 63 P3d 1185 (2003)

Requirement that sex offender who “moves into” state report to authorities does not apply to offender who moved into state before requirement existed. State v. Clum, 216 Or App 1, 171 P3d 980 (2007)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 35 WLR 83 (1999)

181.599

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Registration requirement does not constitute additional punishment for past criminal offense. State v. Matthews, 159 Or App 580, 978 P2d 423 (1999)

181.610

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Under 1997 version of statute, “parole and probation officer” does not include noncertified employee performing ministerial tasks at direction and under supervision of parole and probation officer. Multnomah County Employees Union v. Multnomah County, 176 Or App 323, 31 P3d 499 (2001)

Law enforcement unit may have only one primary duty, although primary duty may encompass performing variety of law enforcement related tasks. Adams v. Public Employees Retirement Board, 180 Or App 59, 42 P3d 911 (2002)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Oregon State Police as officers subject to mandatory training by Board on Public Safety Standards and Training, (1992) Vol 46, p 459

181.653

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Duties of parole and probation officer requiring certification include both duties contained in ORS 181.610 definition of parole and probation officer and duties described in ORS chapter 137. FOPPO v. Washington County, 142 Or App 252, 920 P2d 1141 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Under 1997 version of statute, noncertified employee performing ministerial tasks at direction and under supervision of parole and probation officer is not employed as parole and probation officer. Multnomah County Employees Union v. Multnomah County, 176 Or App 323, 31 P3d 499 (2001)

181.662

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where petitioner was discharged for cause and denied his application for basic police certificate because of gross negligence and Board on Police Standards and Training interpreted rule to include preemployment conduct, interpretation not erroneous or inconsistent with this section. Bailey v. Board on Police Standards, 100 Or App 739, 788 P2d 1022 (1990)

Although Idaho convictions had been dismissed and later expunged, where Oregon law would not have authorized either dismissal or expunction for equivalent convictions, applicant had been convicted of crime. Delehant v. Board on Police Standards, 317 Or 273, 855 P2d 1088 (1993)

Knowingly falsifying information need not involve intent to deceive in order to justify denying or revoking certification. Pierce v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards and Training, 196 Or App 190, 100 P3d 1125 (2004)

Past conduct is relevant to determining whether person possesses present character and fitness that meets standards for certification. Cuff v. Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, 345 Or 462, 198 P3d 931 (2008)

181.820

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Petitioner is not required to prove total absence of risk that petitioner might reoffend. Patterson v. Foote, 226 Or App 104, 204 P3d 97 (2009)