ORS 166.090¹
Telephonic harassment

(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person:

(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no communicative purpose;

(b) By causing such other person’s telephone to ring, knowing that the caller has been forbidden from so doing by a person exercising lawful authority over the receiving telephone; or

(c) By sending to, or leaving at, the other person’s telephone a text message, voice mail or any other message, knowing that the caller has been forbidden from so doing by a person exercising lawful authority over the receiving telephone.

(2) Telephonic harassment is a Class B misdemeanor.

(3) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the caller is a debt collector, as defined in ORS 646.639 (Unlawful collection practices), who engaged in the conduct proscribed by subsection (1) of this section while attempting to collect a debt. The affirmative defense created by this subsection does not apply if the debt collector committed the unlawful collection practice described in ORS 646.639 (Unlawful collection practices) (2)(a) while engaged in the conduct proscribed by subsection (1) of this section. [1987 c.806 §2; 1999 c.115 §1; 2005 c.752 §1]

Notes of Decisions

From defendant’s admission that he had been calling 9-1-1 for entertain­ment and from evidence that first time he called, he said “Huh?” after phone was answered, trier of fact could properly infer defendant had no communicative purpose when he caused phone to ring. State v. Hibbard, 110 Or App 335, 823 P2d 989 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

This sec­tion does not, on its face, prohibit speech or prohibit effect that is caused by words, because focus is not on speech but on causing telephone of an­oth­er to ring. State v. Hibbard, 110 Or App 335, 823 P2d 989 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Victim does not “answer” telephone unless victim per­sonally engages in process of removing receiver from hook and speaking. State v. Lopez, 151 Or App 138, 949 P2d 1237 (1997), Sup Ct review denied. But see State v. Norgard, 156 Or App 190, 967 P2d 499 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

Message conveying in­for­ma­­tion about caller’s state of mind has “communicative purpose,” even though message may be abusive, unwelcome or repetitious of earlier messages. State v. Allison, 325 Or 585, 941 P2d 1017 (1997)

Where victim is subjected to message or voice of caller upon playback of message recorded on telephone answering machine, caller causes victim to “answer” telephone. State v. Norgard, 156 Or App 190, 967 P2d 499 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

Where no evidence that victim’s telephone made audible sounds caused by defendant’s calls after victim forbade defendant to call victim, defendant did not cause victim’s telephone “to ring” as used in this sec­tion. State v. Shifflett, 285 Or App 654, 398 P3d 383 (2017)

Chapter 166

Law Review Cita­tions

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

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