ORS 166.025¹
Disorderly conduct in the second degree

(1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:

(a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior;

(b) Makes unreasonable noise;

(c) Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority;

(d) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way;

(e) Initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false, concerning an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe or other emergency; or

(f) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.

(2)(a) Disorderly conduct in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, disorderly conduct in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor if the crime is committed within 200 feet of the real property on which the person knows a funeral service is being conducted.

(3) As used in this section, “funeral service” means a burial or other memorial service for a deceased person. [1971 c.743 §220; 1983 c.546 §5; 2001 c.104 §55; 2005 c.631 §1; 2012 c.35 §1]

Notes of Decisions

The term “unreasonable noise” is not so broad or vague that pros­e­cu­­tion under this sec­tion violates due process of law or First Amend­ment rights. State v. Marker, 21 Or App 671, 536 P2d 1273 (1975)

Whether state­ment is “unreasonable noise” depends on whether state­ment is intended to be communicative or is merely guise for disturbing those present. State v. Marker, 21 Or App 671, 536 P2d 1273 (1975); State v. Atwood, 195 Or App 490, 98 P3d 751 (2004)

Phrase “hazardous or physically offensive” in this sec­tion is not unconstitu­tionally vague. State v. Clark, 39 Or App 63, 591 P2d 752 (1979), Sup Ct review denied, overruled on other grounds, 155 Or App 279, 963 P2d 739 (1998)

Disorderly con­duct ordinance based on this sec­tion was not unconstitu­tionally vague. City of Cottage Grove v. Farmer, 42 Or App 21, 599 P2d 472 (1979)

Defendants who were disseminating literature to motorists on a public por­tion of a private road were subject to pros­e­cu­­tion under this sec­tion. State v. Horn, 57 Or App 124, 643 P2d 1388 (1982)

“Fighting” and “violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior” describe physical acts of aggression, not speech, and in prohibiting such physical acts paragraph (1)(a) does not run afoul of Article I, sec­tion 8 of the Oregon Constitu­tion. State v. Cantwell, 66 Or App 848, 676 P2d 353 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Paragraph (1)(a) makes unlawful only use of physical force or physical con­duct which is immediately likely to produce use of such force and which is intended to create or recklessly creates risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm and, so construed, is not void for vagueness on its face. State v. Cantwell, 66 Or App 848, 676 P2d 353 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Under this sec­tion, forbidden intent means intent to cause certain public discomfiture, whether or not defendant is successful. State v. Sargent, 74 Or App 50, 701 P2d 484 (1985)

Justifiable fighting could not, without more, provide basis for disorderly con­duct con­vic­­tion. State v. DeLaura, 75 Or App 655, 706 P2d 1011 (1985)

Defendants, who blocked forest road to protest logging activities and were convicted of disorderly con­duct, did not show emergency necessary to support choice-of-evils de­fense to charge of viola­tion of this sec­tion. State v. Hund, 76 Or App 89, 708 P2d 621 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Offense does not require crea­tion of actual public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or that particular number of per­sons be affected. State v. Willy, 155 Or App 279, 963 P2d 739 (1998)

“Lawful order” means police of­fi­cer order that is authorized by and is not contrary to substantive law. State v. Ausmus, 336 Or 493, 85 P3d 864 (2004)

Statute is unconstitu­tionally overbroad in punishing per­sons who continue to congregate after abandoning damaging or harmful ac­tivity that made order to disperse lawful. State v. Ausmus, 336 Or 493, 85 P3d 864 (2004)

Inclusion of intent as requisite mental state prevents local ordinances from imposing more restrictive pro­hi­bi­­tion against obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic on public way. State v. Robison, 202 Or App 237, 120 P3d 1285 (2005)

Whether speech may properly be restrained as “unreasonable noise” depends on whether restraint is applied to inhibit noncommunicative ele­ments of ac­tivity such as time, manner or place or to stifle expression. State v. Rich, 218 Or App 642, 180 P3d 744 (2008)

Evidence that defendant’s participa­tion in fight that occurred solely in confines of trailer was insufficient to es­tab­lish that defendant recklessly created risk of “public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm” sufficient to justify charge of disorderly con­duct under this sec­tion. State v. Love, 271 Or App 545, 351 P3d 780 (2015)

“Public” as used in this sec­tion refers to intent to inconvenience, annoy or alarm community in general, whether or not con­duct occurred in public place. State v. Love, 271 Or App 545, 351 P3d 780 (2015)

Whether odor of marijuana smoke is “physically offensive condi­tion” under this sec­tion depends on totality of circumstances, including nature, dura­tion, intensity, frequency and loca­tion of odor, which must be more than minimally unpleasant but need not be dangerous or harmful. State v. Lang, 273 Or App 113, 359 P3d 349 (2015)

Where defendant masturbated on public transit vehicle next to other passengers, exposed defendant’s genitals and yelled at passengers, defendant did not commit disorderly con­duct in sec­ond de­gree, which requires reasonable per­son exposed to defendant’s con­duct to experience unpleasant sensory effects. State v. Hawkins, 280 Or App 26, 380 P3d 979 (2016)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Drunkenness as ele­ment of crime of disorderly con­duct, breach of peace or vagrancy, (1975) Vol 37, p 647

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 613-624 (1972)

Chapter 166

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972); 69 OLR 169 (1990)

  • Old Town Neighborhood Blog - OregonLive.com, Jun 28, 2009
    “The city just doesn't seem to learn. It let the de facto downtown, govern­ment, i.e., Portland Business Alliance (PBA), craft and draft the anti-homeless ordinance known as "sit and lie." ...”
1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 166—Offenses Against Public Order; Firearms and Other Weapons; Racketeering, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors166.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 166, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano166.­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