2015 ORS 44.520¹
Limitation on compellable testimony from media persons
  • search of media persons’ papers, effects or work premises prohibited
  • exception

(1) No person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by a legislative, executive or judicial officer or body, or any other authority having power to compel testimony or the production of evidence, to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise:

(a) The source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public; or

(b) Any unpublished information obtained or prepared by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public.

(2) No papers, effects or work premises of a person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be subject to a search by a legislative, executive or judicial officer or body, or any other authority having power to compel the production of evidence, by search warrant or otherwise. The provisions of this subsection, however, shall not apply where probable cause exists to believe that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. [1973 c.22 §3; 1979 c.820 §1]

Notes of Decisions

"Informa­tion obtained" in course of news gathering does not include per­sonal observa­tions to extent that observa­tions were of events taking place in public, were made with naked eye and did not relate to work product, informants or confidential sources. State v. Pelham, 136 Or App 336, 901 P2d 972 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Constitu­tionality of this sec­tion under Oregon and United States Constitu­tions, (1979) Vol 39, p 703

Law Review Cita­tions

59 OLR 477 (1981)

Notes of Decisions

Where de­fense was not based on content or source of unpublished in­for­ma­­tion, plaintiff was not entitled to reporter's notes. McNabb v. Oregonian Publishing Co., 69 Or App 136, 685 P2d 458 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Only with­hold­ing of evidence that is ma­te­ri­al and favorable to crim­i­nal defendant gives rise to claim of viola­tion of Article I, sec­tion 11, compulsory process right. State ex rel Meyers v. Howell, 86 Or App 570, 740 P2d 792 (1987); State v. Pelham, 136 Or App 336, 901 P2d 972 (1995), Sup Ct review denied


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 44—Witnesses, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors044.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 44, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano044.­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.