Fleeing or attempting to elude police officer
- penalty
Source:
Section 811.540 — Fleeing or attempting to elude police officer; penalty, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors811.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute (ORS 487.555)
Nonviolent flight from attempted arrest is not criminal, and thus evidence was insufficient to sustain escape charge where defendant was convicted of driving under influence of intoxicants and third degree escape. State v. Swanson, 34 Or App 59, 578 P2d 411 (1978)
Where defendant was driving car in one direction on street, police officer traveling in other direction indicated by lights and signal defendant was to pull over, defendant pulled off road at first opportunity and immediately after stopping car jumped out and fled on foot, flight from car, standing alone, could not serve as basis for conviction under this section. State v. O’Connor, 36 Or App 293, 584 P2d 352 (1978)
Campus security officer who was also deputy sheriff was not “police officer” within meaning of this section where his uniform and automobile identified him only as security officer. State v. Beaman, 42 Or App 57, 599 P2d 476 (1979)
In general
Requirement that police officer be in uniform and display badge or be operating marked vehicle is essential element of offense that must be specified in indictment. State v. Burnett, 185 Or App 409, 60 P3d 547 (2002)
Person need not be within sight of pursuing officer at time person flees or attempts to elude officer by leaving vehicle. State v. Cave, 223 Or App 60, 195 P3d 446 (2008), Sup Ct review denied
Person does not commit repeated violations of this provision simply because more than one officer pursues person or because one officer’s pursuit of person ends before another officer’s pursuit begins. State v. Reed, 256 Or App 61, 299 P3d 574 (2013), Sup Ct review denied
Where more than one officer pursues person, person commits repeated violations of this provision if person (1) stops running and hiding, (2) has sufficient time to make new, independent decision to flee or attempt to elude subsequent pursuer and (3) flees or attempts to elude subsequent pursuer. State v. Reed, 256 Or App 61, 299 P3d 574 (2013), Sup Ct review denied
Motor assisted mobility scooter is not “motor vehicle” for purposes of this section; thus, state failed to prove essential element of offense of fleeing or attempting to elude police officer where evidence established that defendant operated motor assisted scooter, due to disability, on sidewalk and in crosswalk and left scene after being stopped and cited by police, and, accordingly, trial court committed plain error in failing to grant judgment of acquittal sua sponte. State v. Gayman, 312 Or App 193, 492 P3d 130 (2021)
Mental state of “knowingly,” not “intentionally,” applies to “attempt to elude” police officer. State v. Rapp, 306 Or App 265, 473 P3d 1126 (2020), Sup Ct review denied