ORS 40.274¹
Rule 509-3. Legislative branch offsite process counselor privilege

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Confidential communication” means a communication between an offsite process counselor and an individual reporting information or seeking consultative services from the offsite process counselor.

(b) “Harassment” has the meaning given that term in legislative branch personnel rules that establish a standard of conduct that applies to legislators, legislative staff or executive or judicial branch staff that regularly are present in the State Capitol or regularly interact with the legislative branch, lobbyists who are required to be registered under ORS 171.740 (Lobbyist registration), or contractors, including employees of contractors, who regularly perform services in the State Capitol. “Harassment” includes conduct that constitutes sexual harassment or retaliation as those terms are used in the legislative branch personnel rules that address harassment. “Harassment” includes discrimination in a place of public accommodation.

(c) “Legislative branch” means the legislative department, as defined in ORS 174.114 (“Legislative department” defined).

(d) “Offsite process counselor” means an offsite process counselor who meets the qualifications established under ORS 173.930 (Contracting for offsite process counselor) (2), who performs services under ORS 173.933 (Offsite process counselor duties) and who has completed at least 40 hours of training in advocacy for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking or workplace harassment, including harassment based on race, gender or disability, that has been approved by the Attorney General by rule.

(2) A person who reports information to an offsite process counselor that concerns harassment that the person has experienced or witnessed has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing:

(a) Confidential communication made by the person to or received by the person from the offsite process counselor; and

(b) Records that are created or maintained by the offsite process counselor in the course of the person reporting information that concerns harassment in the State Capitol.

(3) A person who consults with an offsite process counselor for the purpose of understanding what options are available for reporting harassment or filing a harassment complaint has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing:

(a) Confidential communication made by the person to or received by the person from the offsite process counselor; and

(b) Records that are created or maintained by the offsite process counselor in the course of providing counsel or services to the person.

(4) This section does not prohibit the disclosure of:

(a) Any information if the offsite process counselor reasonably believes that the disclosure is necessary to prevent immediate physical harm or other harm described in ORS 40.252 (Rule 504-5. Communications revealing intent to commit certain crimes); or

(b) Nonpersonally identifying data.

(5) This section applies to civil, criminal and administrative proceedings and to legislative branch disciplinary proceedings. [2019 c.604 §17]

Note: 40.274 (Rule 509-3. Legislative branch offsite process counselor privilege) was added to and made a part of 40.225 (Rule 503. Lawyer-client privilege) to 40.295 (Rule 514. Effect on existing privileges) by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Chapter 40

(Generally)

Notes of Decisions

General rule is that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in pro­ceed­ing governed by Oregon Evidence Code. State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984)

Party could introduce results of polygraph test taken by spouse for purpose of showing that response of party upon learning polygraph results was reasonable. Fromdahl and Fromdahl, 314 Or 496, 840 P2d 683 (1992)

Where state law completely precludes reliable, ma­te­ri­ally exculpatory evidence, exclusion of that evidence violates Due Process Clauses of United States Constitu­tion. State v. Cazares-Mendez, 233 Or App 310, 227 P3d 172 (2010), aff’d State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez, 350 Or 491, 256 P3d 104 (2011)

Oregon Evidence Code articulates min­i­mum standards of reliability that apply to many types of evidence for admissibility, including eyewitness identifica­tion evidence, and parties must employ code to address admissibility of eyewitness testimony. State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012)

Law Review Cita­tions

59 OLR 43 (1980); 19 WLR 343 (1983)

Chapter 40

Evidence Code

Annota­tions are listed under the heading “Under former similar statute” if they predate the adop­tion of the Evidence Code, which went into effect January 1, 1982.

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 40—Evidence Code, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors040.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 40, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano040.­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