Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

ORS 167.164

Applied in 5 court decisions — leading case 147 Or. App. 556 - State v. Harelson (1997)

Most recently applied in Evans v. Attorney General (May 1997)

1991 c.962 §5; 1999 c.59 §33; 2009 c.78 §58; 2013 c.128 §1

How often courts cite this section

1995199720
citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

(1) A person commits the crime of possession of a gray machine if the person manufactures, sells, leases, transports, places, possesses or services a gray machine or conducts or negotiates a transaction affecting or designed to affect the ownership, custody or use of a gray machine.

(2) Possession of a gray machine is a Class C felony.

(3) If any device is seized by a law enforcement agency based on a contention that the device is a gray machine, and a motion for return or restoration of the device is filed under ORS 133.633, the burden of proof is on the state to establish that the device is in fact a gray machine.

(4) Violation of, solicitation to violate, attempt to violate or conspiracy to violate subsection (1) of this section constitutes prohibited conduct for purposes of ORS chapter 131A. A device that is claimed to be a gray machine may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of only if a judgment of forfeiture has been entered under ORS 131.550 to 131.600 or ORS chapter 131A.

(5) It is a defense to a charge of possession of a gray machine if the machine that caused the charge to be brought was manufactured prior to 1958 and was not operated for purposes of unlawful gambling.

Official source: Oregon State Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain Oregon statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.