2015 ORS 162.247¹
Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer

(1) A person commits the crime of interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer if the person, knowing that another person is a peace officer or a parole and probation officer as defined in ORS 181A.355 (Definitions for ORS 181A.355 to 181A.670):

(a) Intentionally acts in a manner that prevents, or attempts to prevent, a peace officer or parole and probation officer from performing the lawful duties of the officer with regards to another person; or

(b) Refuses to obey a lawful order by the peace officer or parole and probation officer.

(2) Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer is a Class A misdemeanor.

(3) This section does not apply in situations in which the person is engaging in:

(a) Activity that would constitute resisting arrest under ORS 162.315 (Resisting arrest); or

(b) Passive resistance. [1997 c.719 §1; 1999 c.1040 §7; 2005 c.668 §1]

Note: 162.247 (Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer) was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 162 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions

Speech alone does not constitute acting in manner that prevents or at­tempts to prevent peace of­fi­cer from performing duty. State v. Lam, 176 Or App 149, 29 P3d 1206 (2001)

Lawful order is not unconstitu­tionally vague term. State v. Andre, 178 Or App 566, 38 P3d 949 (2002)

Prohibi­tion against refusing to obey lawful order is not facially overbroad viola­tion of constitu­tional right of free speech or freedom of assembly. State v. Illig-Renn, 341 Or 228, 142 P3d 62 (2006)

Prohibi­tion against refusing to obey lawful order is not facially vague, vague for conferring uncontrolled discre­tion to punish or vague for failure to give fair warning. State v. Illig-Renn, 341 Or 228, 142 P3d 62 (2006)

Unlawful police con­duct in initiating encounter does not prevent order issued during encounter from being lawful order. State v. Neill, 216 Or App 499, 173 P3d 1262 (2007), Sup Ct review denied

To commit crime of interfering with peace of­fi­cer or parole and proba­tion of­fi­cer, per­son does not need to have culpable mental state with respect to lawfulness of police order. State v. Ruggles, 238 Or App 86, 242 P3d 643 (2010), Sup Ct review denied

Defendant, who did not obey of­fi­cers commands but instead ignored of­fi­cers and continued working on vehicle, was not engaging in passive resistance, which means engaging in acts or techniques of noncoopera­tion commonly associated with govern­ment protest or civil disobedience. State v. Patnesky, 265 Or App 356, 335 P3d 331 (2014)

Refusal to obey of­fi­cers lawful order requires defendant to consciously intend to disobey of­fi­cers lawful order, not merely fail to disobey order. State v. Enyeart, 266 Or App 763, 340 P3d 57 (2014)

Legislature excluded con­duct that constitutes resisting arrest from defini­tion of interfering with peace of­fi­cer; thus, denial of mo­tion for judg­ment of acquittal was in error and defendant was entitled to relief through dismissal of charges of interfering with peace of­fi­cer under this sec­tion, and counts could not be submitted to jury when state charged defendant with resisting an­oth­er per­sons arrest and also charged defendant with in­ter­fer­ence with peace of­fi­cer based on same con­duct. State v. Garcia, 278 Or App 639, 377 P3d 596 (2016)

Chapter 162

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 162—Offenses Against the State and Public Justice, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors162.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 162, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano162.­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.