300 P.3d 210
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant was convicted of resisting arrest under ORS 162.315 after being taken into custody for a parole violation.
- Portland police encountered defendant on the street; after identifying the outstanding warrant, officers attempted to arrest him and he resisted, ultimately being taken into custody with assistance from a private security guard.
- Defendant argued that resisting arrest under ORS 162.315 does not apply when custody is for a parole violation, not for charging an offense.
- ORS 162.315(1) prohibits resisting arrest of a peace officer or parole and probation officer in making an arrest; ORS 162.315(2)(a) defines arrest by reference to ORS 133.005, which defines arrest in terms of charging an offense.
- HB 3379 (2005) amended the statutory scheme to include parole and probation officers in resisting arrest and to clarify arrest authority for parole violations; the majority adopts a construction that taking a parole violation arrestee is an arrest for purposes of ORS 162.315; the dissent would construe the statute differently.
- The majority affirms the conviction, applying a context-based definition of arrest to include parole-violation custody as an arrest under the resisting arrest statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether custody for a parole violation qualifies as an arrest under ORS 162.315. | Plaintiff (State) contends parole-violation custody falls within arrest for purposes of ORS 162.315. | Defendant argues parole violations are not offenses and thus not arrest for charging an offense under ORS 133.005. | Yes, qualifies as arrest under ORS 162.315. |
| Is the parole-violation arrest construction consistent with HB 3379’s legislative history | Majority uses HB 3379 history to justify broader arrest meaning. | Dissent argues statute should be read plainly and HB 3379 does not change arrest meaning for ORS 162.315. | Construction consistent with legislative history; arrest for parole violations is within ORS 162.315. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lupoli, 348 Or 346 (2010) (addressing elements of resisting arrest and related statutory interpretation)
- Necanicum Investment Co. v. Employment Dept., 345 Or 138 (2008) (textual and contextual analysis in statutory interpretation)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009) (standard for interpreting statutes with multiple related provisions)