Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

789 P.2d 707

101 Or.App. 237

State v. Dameron

STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. William C. DAMERON, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 4, 1990

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 1990-04-04

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1993

1 state decisions

Applies OR 164 § 164.245

Relies on 100 Or. App. 336 - State v. Cargill · State v. Dameron

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-04-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

D881992M; CA A60258.

¶1Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted March 5, 1990.
Decided April 4, 1990.
Reconsideration Denied May 30, 1990.

¶2Steven L. Price, Hillsboro, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

¶3Rives Kistler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., and Katherine H. Waldo, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem.

¶4Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and NEWMAN and DEITS, JJ.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6Defendant appeals his conviction for criminal trespass in the second degree. ORS 164.245. He was gathering signatures on an initiative petition at the main entrance to the Raleigh Hills Fred Meyer store. He was asked to leave by an employee of the store and, when he refused, he was arrested for trespassing. He raised the defense that he had a constitutional right to be on the premises for the purpose of collecting signatures and that, therefore, the order for him to leave was not lawful under Article I, section 8, and Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution.

¶7This case is not distinguishable from State v. Cargill,100 Or. App. 336, 786 P.2d 208 (1990). Defendant established that he was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity, and the court erred in ruling that the order for defendant to leave the premises was lawful.

¶8Reversed.

/789/p2d/707 · .json · Public domain