ORS 164.245¹
Criminal trespass in the second degree

(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a motor vehicle or in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a Class C misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §139; 1999 c.1040 §9]

Notes of Decisions

Defendant was guilty under this sec­tion where he refused to leave Public Utilities Commission rate hearing following lawful order of hearings of­fi­cer based on defendant’s disruptive behavior, and legality of earlier ruling of hearings of­fi­cer, denying defendant participa­tion in representative capacity, did not affect legality of order to leave the room. State v. Marbet, 32 Or App 67, 573 P2d 736 (1978)

It was error for trial court to require jury to find defendant not guilty of burglary before it could consider whether defendant was guilty of lesser-included of­fense of crim­i­nal trespass under this sec­tion. State v. Ogden, 35 Or App 91, 580 P2d 1049 (1978)

Where defendant, charged with first de­gree burglary (ORS 164.225 (Burglary in the first degree)), presented evidence that he did not enter building and that he did not enter or remain upon the premises with an intent to commit a crime there, evidence created dispute as to issues of fact which would have enabled jury to find that ele­ments of greater of­fense had not been proven and failure to instruct on lesser of­fense of crime of this sec­tion was error. State v. Naylor, 291 Or 191, 629 P2d 1308 (1981)

Where trial court reasoned jury could infer defendant was on Lloyd Center prop­erty and Lloyd Center security per­sonnel had requisite authority, yet no evidence in record showed who owned prop­erty or that areas were marked, posted or identified as belonging to Lloyd Center, trial court erred in denying defendant’s mo­tion for judg­ment of acquittal. State v. Coffee, 117 Or App 9, 843 P2d 505 (1992)

Statute is inapplicable to United States Post Office prop­erty. U.S. v. Waites, 198 F3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2000)

Where per­son has been di­rected by nonjudicial order to leave public premises, per­son may raise statutory or constitu­tional right to remain as de­fense to charge that per­son remained unlawfully on premises. State v. Riddell, 172 Or App 675, 21 P3d 128 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Constitu­tionality of applica­tion of penal trespass statute to per­sons distributing religious literature, (1983) Vol 44, p 20

Chapter 164

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 164—Offenses Against Property, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors164.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 164, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano164.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
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. Currency Information