2015 ORS 137.540¹
Conditions of probation
  • evaluation and treatment
  • fees
  • effect of failure to abide by conditions
  • modification

(1) The court may sentence the defendant to probation subject to the following general conditions unless specifically deleted by the court. The probationer shall:

(a) Pay supervision fees, fines, restitution or other fees ordered by the court.

(b) Not use or possess controlled substances except pursuant to a medical prescription.

(c) Submit to testing for controlled substance or alcohol use if the probationer has a history of substance abuse or if there is a reasonable suspicion that the probationer has illegally used controlled substances.

(d) Participate in a substance abuse evaluation as directed by the supervising officer and follow the recommendations of the evaluator if there are reasonable grounds to believe there is a history of substance abuse.

(e) Remain in the State of Oregon until written permission to leave is granted by the Department of Corrections or a county community corrections agency.

(f) If physically able, find and maintain gainful full-time employment, approved schooling, or a full-time combination of both. Any waiver of this requirement must be based on a finding by the court stating the reasons for the waiver.

(g) Change neither employment nor residence without prior permission from the Department of Corrections or a county community corrections agency.

(h) Permit the parole and probation officer to visit the probationer or the probationers work site or residence and to conduct a walk-through of the common areas and of the rooms in the residence occupied by or under the control of the probationer.

(i) Consent to the search of person, vehicle or premises upon the request of a representative of the supervising officer if the supervising officer has reasonable grounds to believe that evidence of a violation will be found, and submit to fingerprinting or photographing, or both, when requested by the Department of Corrections or a county community corrections agency for supervision purposes.

(j) Obey all laws, municipal, county, state and federal.

(k) Promptly and truthfully answer all reasonable inquiries by the Department of Corrections or a county community corrections agency.

(L) Not possess weapons, firearms or dangerous animals.

(m) Report as required and abide by the direction of the supervising officer.

(n) If recommended by the supervising officer, successfully complete a sex offender treatment program approved by the supervising officer and submit to polygraph examinations at the direction of the supervising officer if the probationer:

(A) Is under supervision for a sex offense under ORS 163.305 (Definitions) to 163.467 (Private indecency);

(B) Was previously convicted of a sex offense under ORS 163.305 (Definitions) to 163.467 (Private indecency); or

(C) Was previously convicted in another jurisdiction of an offense that would constitute a sex offense under ORS 163.305 (Definitions) to 163.467 (Private indecency) if committed in this state.

(o) Participate in a mental health evaluation as directed by the supervising officer and follow the recommendation of the evaluator.

(p) If required to report as a sex offender under ORS 163A.015 (Reporting by sex offender discharged, released or placed on probation by court or another United States jurisdiction), report with the Department of State Police, a city police department, a county sheriffs office or the supervising agency:

(A) When supervision begins;

(B) Within 10 days of a change in residence;

(C) Once each year within 10 days of the probationers date of birth;

(D) Within 10 days of the first day the person works at, carries on a vocation at or attends an institution of higher education; and

(E) Within 10 days of a change in work, vocation or attendance status at an institution of higher education.

(q) Submit to a risk and needs assessment as directed by the supervising officer.

(2) In addition to the general conditions, the court may impose any special conditions of probation that are reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the probationer, or both, including, but not limited to, that the probationer shall:

(a) For crimes committed prior to November 1, 1989, and misdemeanors committed on or after November 1, 1989, be confined to the county jail or be restricted to the probationers own residence or to the premises thereof, or be subject to any combination of such confinement and restriction, such confinement or restriction or combination thereof to be for a period not to exceed one year or one-half of the maximum period of confinement that could be imposed for the offense for which the defendant is convicted, whichever is the lesser.

(b) For felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989:

(A) Be confined in the county jail, or be subject to other custodial sanctions under community supervision, or both, as provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission; and

(B) Comply with any special conditions of probation that are imposed by the supervising officer in accordance with subsection (8) of this section.

(c) For crimes committed on or after December 5, 1996, sell any assets of the probationer as specifically ordered by the court in order to pay restitution.

(3) When a person who is a sex offender is released on probation, the court shall impose as a special condition of probation that the person not reside in any dwelling in which another sex offender who is on probation, parole or post-prison supervision resides, without the approval of the persons supervising parole and probation officer, or in which more than one other sex offender who is on probation, parole or post-prison supervision resides, without the approval of the director of the probation agency that is supervising the person or of the county manager of the Department of Corrections, or a designee of the director or manager. As soon as practicable, the supervising parole and probation officer of a person subject to the requirements of this subsection shall review the persons living arrangement with the persons sex offender treatment provider to ensure that the arrangement supports the goals of offender rehabilitation and community safety. As used in this subsection:

(a) Dwelling has the meaning given that term in ORS 469B.100 (Definitions for ORS 469B.100 to 469B.118).

(b) Dwelling does not include a residential treatment facility or a halfway house.

(c) Halfway house means a publicly or privately operated profit or nonprofit residential facility that provides rehabilitative care and treatment for sex offenders.

(d) Sex offender has the meaning given that term in ORS 163A.005 (Definitions for ORS 163A.005 to 163A.235).

(4)(a) If the person is released on probation following conviction of a sex crime, as defined in ORS 163A.005 (Definitions for ORS 163A.005 to 163A.235), or an assault, as defined in ORS 163.175 (Assault in the second degree) or 163.185 (Assault in the first degree), and the victim was under 18 years of age, the court, if requested by the victim, shall include as a special condition of the persons probation that the person not reside within three miles of the victim unless:

(A) The victim resides in a county having a population of less than 130,000 and the person is required to reside in that county;

(B) The person demonstrates to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that no mental intimidation or pressure was brought to bear during the commission of the crime;

(C) The person demonstrates to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that imposition of the condition will deprive the person of a residence that would be materially significant in aiding in the rehabilitation of the person or in the success of the probation; or

(D) The person resides in a halfway house. As used in this subparagraph, halfway house means a publicly or privately operated profit or nonprofit residential facility that provides rehabilitative care and treatment for sex offenders.

(b) A victim may request imposition of the special condition of probation described in this subsection at the time of sentencing in person or through the prosecuting attorney.

(c) If the court imposes the special condition of probation described in this subsection and if at any time during the period of probation the victim moves to within three miles of the probationers residence, the court may not require the probationer to change the probationers residence in order to comply with the special condition of probation.

(5) When a person who is a sex offender, as defined in ORS 163A.005 (Definitions for ORS 163A.005 to 163A.235), is released on probation, the Department of Corrections or the county community corrections agency, whichever is appropriate, shall notify the city police department, if the person is going to reside within a city, and the county sheriffs office of the county in which the person is going to reside of the persons release and the conditions of the persons release.

(6) Failure to abide by all general and special conditions of probation may result in arrest, modification of conditions, revocation of probation or imposition of structured, intermediate sanctions in accordance with rules adopted under ORS 137.595 (Establishing system of sanctions).

(7) The court may order that probation be supervised by the court. If the court orders that probation be supervised by the court, the defendant shall pay a fee of $100 to the court. Fees imposed under this subsection in the circuit court shall be deposited by the clerk of the court in the General Fund. Fees imposed in a justice court under this subsection shall be paid to the county treasurer. Fees imposed in a municipal court under this subsection shall be paid to the city treasurer.

(8)(a) The court may at any time modify the conditions of probation.

(b) When the court orders a defendant placed under the supervision of the Department of Corrections or a community corrections agency, the supervising officer may file with the court a proposed modification to the special conditions of probation. The supervising officer shall provide a copy of the proposed modification to the district attorney and the probationer. If the district attorney:

(A) Files an objection to the proposed modification less than five judicial days after the proposed modification was filed, the court shall schedule a hearing no later than 10 judicial days after the proposed modification was filed, unless the court finds good cause to schedule a hearing at a later time.

(B) Does not file an objection to the proposed modification less than five judicial days after the proposed modification was filed, the proposed modification becomes effective five judicial days after the proposed modification was filed.

(9) A court may not order revocation of probation as a result of the probationers failure to pay restitution unless the court determines from the totality of the circumstances that the purposes of the probation are not being served.

(10) It is not a cause for revocation of probation that the probationer failed to apply for or accept employment at any workplace where there is a labor dispute in progress. As used in this subsection, labor dispute has the meaning for that term provided in ORS 662.010 (Definitions for ORS 662.010 to 662.130).

(11)(a) If the court determines that a defendant has violated the terms of probation, the court shall collect a $25 fee from the defendant and may impose a fee for the costs of extraditing the defendant to this state for the probation violation proceeding if the defendant left the state in violation of the conditions of the defendants probation. The fees imposed under this subsection become part of the judgment and may be collected in the same manner as a fine.

(b) Probation violation fees collected under this subsection in the circuit court shall be deposited by the clerk of the court in the General Fund. Extradition cost fees collected in the circuit court under this subsection shall be deposited by the clerk of the court in the Arrest and Return Account established by ORS 133.865 (Arrest and Return Account). Fees collected in a justice court under this subsection shall be paid to the county treasurer. Fees collected in a municipal court under this subsection shall be paid to the city treasurer.

(12) As used in this section, attends, institution of higher education, works and carries on a vocation have the meanings given those terms in ORS 163A.005 (Definitions for ORS 163A.005 to 163A.235). [Amended by 1965 c.346 §1; 1969 c.597 §125; 1977 c.371 §3; 1977 c.380 §2; 1981 c.671 §1; 1983 c.588 §2; 1985 c.818 §2; 1987 c.780 §3; 1989 c.790 §16; 1991 c.196 §1; 1991 c.630 §5; 1991 c.731 §1; 1993 c.14 §11; 1993 c.680 §16; 1997 c.313 §24; 1999 c.626 §11; amendments by 1999 c.626 §34 repealed by 2001 c.884 §1; 2001 c.726 §§1,2; 2001 c.884 §5; 2005 c.264 §3; 2005 c.558 §1; 2005 c.567 §8; 2005 c.576 §1a; 2005 c.642 §1; 2009 c.111 §1; 2009 c.204 §5; 2009 c.659 §§21,23; 2009 c.713 §11; 2011 c.595 §162; 2013 c.649 §24; 2015 c.198 §1; 2015 c.350 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Specific condi­tion prohibiting entry into marriage without court permission was valid. State v. Allen, 12 Or App 455, 506 P2d 528 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

Specific condi­tion prohibiting associa­tion with any per­son ever convicted of crime was not facially invalid. State v. Allen, 12 Or App 455, 506 P2d 528 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

The fact that defendants con­vic­­tion is for an at­tempt to commit theft would not preclude the court from condi­tioning proba­tion upon restitu­tion of the amount actually taken, even though a larger amount. State v. Foltz, 14 Or App 582, 513 P2d 1208 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

The aggrieved party status is limited to the owner of the automobile damaged. State v. Getsinger, 27 Or App 339, 556 P2d 147 (1976)

Restitu­tion means return of sum of money, object or value of object which defendant wrongfully obtained in course of com­mit­ting crime. State v. Stalheim, 275 Or 683, 552 P2d 829 (1976)

Repara­tion encompasses only reimburse­ment for victims liquidated or easily measurable damages resulting from charged of­fense, embracing medical expenses, wages actually lost, and reimburse­ment for easily measurable prop­erty damage. State v. Stalheim, 275 Or 683, 552 P2d 829 (1976)

A proba­tioner retains all civil liberties except those which are taken away as condi­tions of proba­tion and the standard against which the validity of condi­tions imposed is to be measured is whether they bear a reasonable rela­tionship to the reforma­tion of the offender or the protec­tion of the public; overruling State v. Davis/Travis, 9 Or App 412, 496 P2d 923 (1972), Sup Ct review denied. State v. Culbertson, 29 Or App 363, 563 P2d 1224 (1977)

Condi­tion of proba­tion, requiring defendant convicted of crim­i­nally neg­li­gent hom­i­cide to pay $7,100 to victims estate, was improper absent evidence that such sum constituted repara­tion or reimburse­ment for liquidated or easily measurable damages actually resulting from the of­fense. State v. Wanrow, 30 Or App 75, 566 P2d 533 (1977)

In trial of defendant convicted of theft and resale of $18,000 antique auto, court order requiring restitu­tion of $18,000 within ninety days as condi­tion of proba­tion did not set forth so short a repay­ment period as to make condi­tion impossible, was not inconsistent with courts prior finding that defendant was indigent for purposes of appoint­ment of counsel, and was not abuse of discre­tion. State v. Ledder, 31 Or App 487, 570 P2d 994 (1977)

Proba­tion condi­tion, requiring con­sent of defendant to warrantless searches for drugs of her per­son, premises, or vehicle at any time, was not demonstrably in aid of her proba­tion following guilty plea to check forgery. State v. Fisher, 32 Or App 465, 547 P2d 354 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Condi­tion of proba­tion, requiring defendant to make restitu­tion for items which she was not convicted of taking and had not admitted taking, was improper. State v. Cox, 35 Or App 169, 581 P2d 104 (1978)

Where proba­tion condi­tion interferes with marital right, court must consider whether spouse would be bad influence endangering rehabilita­tion or public safety and whether restric­tion less than total separa­tion would protect societal interests. State v. Martin, 282 Or 583, 580 P2d 536 (1978); State v. Saxon, 131 Or App 662, 886 P2d 505 (1994)

Condi­tion requiring proba­tioner to submit to polygraph tests could constitu­tionally be imposed with no more than general finding of court that it was reasonably necessary to accomplish purpose of proba­tion. State v. Age, 38 Or App 501, 590 P2d 759 (1979)

Under former statute, which allowed repara­tion or restitu­tion to crime victim, estate of hom­i­cide victim was not direct victim of crime entitled to restitu­tion. State v. Wanrow, 39 Or App 13, 591 P2d 751 (1979)

Condi­tions of proba­tion may not be fixed by proba­tion of­fi­cers. State v. Maag, 41 Or App 133, 579 P2d 838 (1979)

Imposi­tion of proba­tion condi­tion that allowed proba­tion of­fi­cer to search proba­tioners per­son, residence, or prop­erty without warrant at any time was invalid where this condi­tion was imposed by proba­tion of­fi­cer and not by sen­ten­cing court. State v. Stephens, 47 Or App 305, 614 P2d 1180 (1980)

Trial court had no authority to require defendant to pay proba­tion fee. State v. Haynes, 53 Or App 850, 633 P2d 38 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant was convicted on two felony counts for crimes committed while on proba­tion for earlier felony con­vic­­tion and court continued earlier proba­tion but added new condi­tions by imposing consecutive county jail terms of im­pris­on­­ment to be served after prison term for most recent con­vic­­tions, court could act under authority of this sec­tion to modify condi­tions of proba­tion. State v. Walker, 77 Or App 464, 713 P2d 612 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

When defendant is placed on proba­tion and, as condi­tion of that proba­tion, he is ordered to serve 180 days, with 165 days suspended, trial court may require him to serve that 165 days when he violates condi­tions of proba­tion, and still continue proba­tion. State v. Kreitzer, 85 Or App 151, 735 P2d 1274 (1987)

Trial court had statutory authority to increase DUII defendants jail time by modifying condi­tions of proba­tion although defendant had not violated terms of proba­tion. State v. Jones, 90 Or App 176, 750 P2d 1211 (1988)

Where submission to searches as condi­tion of proba­tion is authorized only if proba­tion of­fi­cer has reasonable grounds to believe that search will disclose evidence of proba­tion viola­tion, search imposed to verify compliance with condi­tions of proba­tion fails to conform to statute. State v. Schwab, 95 Or App 593, 771 P2d 277 (1989); State v. Guzman, 164 Or App 90, 990 P2d 370 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant pleaded guilty to rape in sec­ond de­gree of girl under age 14, proba­tion condi­tion that defendant not be present in any private residence or vehicle with child under age 18 was proper for protec­tion of public. State v. Crocker, 96 Or App 111, 771 P2d 1026 (1989)

Where trial court imposed as condi­tion of proba­tion that defendant build entire new fence, record that shows cattle strayed through hole in fence not sufficient to support condi­tion of proba­tion that defendant build entire new fence. State v. Holdner, 96 Or App 445, 772 P2d 1382 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Authority of proba­tion of­fi­cer to con­duct home visit does not encompass authority to con­duct search. State v. Altman, 97 Or App 462, 777 P2d 969 (1989); State v. Guzman, 164 Or App 90, 990 P2d 370 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

Court did not err in assessing, as condi­tion of proba­tion, $250 rather than $90 for reimburse­ment of court-appointed attorney fees since only evidence re­gard­ing what state would pay for defendants representa­tion was his counsels $250 calcula­tion during sen­ten­cing. State v. Westby, 99 Or App 371, 781 P2d 1270 (1989)

Special condi­tion of proba­tion may be imposed only for purposes specified by statute and not as addi­tional punish­ment. State v. Donovan, 307 Or 461, 770 P2d 581 (1989); State v. Qualey, 138 Or App 74, 906 P2d 835 (1995)

Trial court has authority to modify condi­tions of proba­tion and extend it without finding viola­tion of proba­tion. State v. Stanford, 100 Or App 303, 786 P2d 225 (1990)

Although court may prohibit defendant from pos­ses­sing and owning firearms as condi­tion of proba­tion, court may not confiscate and destroy defendants firearms under this sec­tion. State v. Wilson 105 Or App 20, 803 P2d 769 (1990)

Condi­tion of proba­tion requiring confine­ment for con­vic­­tion of misdemeanor was impermissible. State v. Wold, 105 Or App 158, 803 P2d 782 (1991); State v. Armstrong, 106 Or App 486, 808 P2d 109 (1991); State v. Taylor, 115 Or App 76, 836 P2d 755 (1992)

In exercising discre­tion under this sec­tion, court may not exceed sen­tence defined by other statute. State v. Stockton, 105 Or App 162, 803 P2d 1227 (1991)

Depart­ment of Correc­tions, acting through proba­tion of­fi­cers, is responsible for notifying sen­ten­cing court of proba­tion viola­tions. Zavalas v. Dept. of Correc­tions, 106 Or App 444, 809 P2d 1329 (1991)

Discre­tionary immunity under ORS 30.265 (Scope of liability of public body, officers, employees and agents) does not protect proba­tion of­fi­cer from liability for exercising reporting duties. Zavalas v. Dept. of Correc­tions, 106 Or App 444, 809 P2d 1329 (1991)

Court has no authority to impose jail sen­tence as condi­tion of proba­tion for misdemeanor of­fense committed after November 1, 1989. State v. Van Gorder, 108 Or App 333, 813 P2d 1136 (1991)

ORS 813.020 (Fee to be paid on conviction) controls misdemeanor DUII con­vic­­tions, and this sec­tion has no applica­tion to those con­vic­­tions. State v. Oary, 109 Or App 580, 820 P2d 857 (1991), as modified by 112 Or App 296, 829 P2d 90 (1992); State v. Taylor, 115 Or App 76, 836 P2d 755 (1992)

Court erred in authorizing searches by proba­tion of­fi­cer without including require­ment they be based on reasonable grounds to believe search would disclose evidence of proba­tion viola­tion. State v. Tejeda, 111 Or App 201, 826 P2d 25 (1992)

Limits placed on defendants contact with his wife secured publics safety and interfered with his marital rights only to permissible de­gree. State v. Gilkey, 111 Or App 303, 826 P2d 69 (1992)

Evidence that defendants codefendant and boyfriend was involved in methamphetamine manufacturing and trafficking and that he had recently been shot in narcotics related incident was sufficient to sustain trial courts imposi­tion as condi­tion of proba­tion that defendant refrain from associating with him. State v. Quackenbush, 113 Or App 263, 832 P2d 1236 (1992)

Trial court must make fact record that condi­tion of proba­tion is appropriate. State v. Quackenbush, 113 Or App 263, 832 P2d 1236 (1992)

Where, as condi­tion of proba­tion, defendant was re­quired to take Antabuse but order did not make condi­tion subject to medical approval as re­quired by this sec­tion and orders concerning urine, blood and breath tests and polygraph tests did not list terms and limita­tions re­quired by this sec­tion, remand for resen­ten­cing was re­quired. State v. Robertson, 113 Or App 467, 833 P2d 326 (1992)

Board of Parole erred in imposing parole condi­tion that prohibited peti­tioner from entering or residing in named county because restric­tion was broader than necessary to accomplish purpose of protecting victim or other potential victims. Owens v. Board of Parole, 113 Or App 507, 834 P2d 547 (1992)

Trial court has discre­tion to fashion its own condi­tion of proba­tion if condi­tion serves to reform offender or to protect public. State v. Caffee, 116 Or App 23, 840 P2d 720 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Retroactive applica­tion of amended version of this sec­tion violates constitu­tional proscrip­tion against ex post facto laws, because amended version of this sec­tion exposes defendant to greater punish­ment than defendant faced when defendant committed of­fense. State v. Harding, 116 Or App 29, 840 P2d 113 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

This statute reflects legislative policy that trial courts should have max­i­mum flexibility to determine condi­tions of proba­tion and modify those condi­tions at any time. State v. Peterson, 116 Or App 418, 841 P2d 666 (1992)

Trial court has continuing jurisdic­tion to administer proba­tion, which, despite filing of ap­peal, includes modifying condi­tions of proba­tion. State v. Peterson, 116 Or App 418, 841 P2d 666 (1992)

Trial court could not require defendant to submit to per­sonal search by police as condi­tion of proba­tion where statute specifically limits such searches to proba­tion of­fi­cers. State v. Smith, 117 Or App 473, 844 P2d 276 (1992)

Court erred in imposing separate proba­tion condi­tions for merged of­fenses. State v. Brown, 122 Or App 632, 857 P2d 915 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Prohibiting proba­tioner in child endanger­ment case from residing with spouse if spouse used illegal drugs did not impermissibly interfere with marriage right. State v. McSweeney, 123 Or App 460, 860 P2d 305 (1993)

Provision identifying per­sonnel authorized to perform searches related to parole viola­tions did not restrict searches by other per­sonnel for other purposes. State v. Campbell, 128 Or App 592, 876 P2d 799 (1994)

Proba­tioners mere acquiescence to search by proba­tion of­fi­cer can constitute con­sent where evidence of undue coercion is absent. State v. Davis, 133 Or App 467, 891 P2d 1373 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Reasonable grounds for proba­tion of­fi­cer to search requires more than reasonable suspicion but less than probable cause. State v. Gulley, 324 Or 57, 921 P2d 396 (1996)

Proba­tion of­fi­cer has reasonable grounds to search if pos­ses­sing in­for­ma­­tion that causes of­fi­cer to believe proba­tioner is violating condi­tion of proba­tion and that search of proba­tioners per­son, residence, vehicle or prop­erty would disclose evidence of viola­tion. State v. Gulley, 324 Or 57, 921 P2d 396 (1996)

Court may impose require­ment that defendant pay cost of incarcera­tion as general condi­tion of proba­tion. State v. Johnston, 176 Or App 418, 31 P3d 1101 (2001)

Sanc­tions available upon failure to abide by proba­tion condi­tions are alternatives that are not mutually exclusive. State v. Melton, 189 Or App 411, 76 P3d 156 (2003)

State may separately adjudicate discrete proba­tion viola­tions. State v. Melton, 189 Or App 411, 76 P3d 156 (2003)

Where proba­tion condi­tions are reasonably related to of­fense, court is not re­quired to make particularized factual findings before imposing sex offender condi­tions on per­son convicted of nonsex of­fense. State v. McCollister, 210 Or App 1, 150 P3d 7 (2006)

Failure to make restitu­tion pay­ments, alone, is not sufficient to es­tab­lish that purpose of proba­tion are not being served. State v. Kacin, 237 Or App 66, 240 P3d 1099 (2010)

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 196 (1974); 55 OLR 101 (1976); 24 WLR 1159 (1988)

  • Ryan Scott, Jan 23, 2013
    “Hey, sorry you just lost a trial. But there is some benefit. If your client is going to be put on proba­tion, you can help get rid of one of the sillier legislative absurdities.”

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 137—Judgment and Execution; Parole and Probation by the Court, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors137.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 137, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano137.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.