State v. Rainey, 431 P.3d 98

Defendant threatened to shoot neighbor Coleman during a face-to-face dispute at the property line; Coleman and defendant were unaware the exchange was being recorded.
Quiros, Coleman’s stepsister, recorded the conversation on her cell phone from a second-story bedroom window inside her house.
Defendant was charged with menacing (ORS 163.190) and moved to exclude the recording as obtained in violation of ORS 165.540(1), which prohibits obtaining conversations without all participants’ knowledge.
The State invoked the ORS 165.540(3) "homeowner’s exception," arguing recordings made by subscribers or family members in their homes are exempt from the prohibition.
Trial court denied the motion to exclude; appeal presented the narrower statutory-construction question whether the exception applies only when the conversation occurs in the home or when the act of recording occurs in the home.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 165.540(3) exempts recordings made in the subscriber’s home even when the conversation occurred outside	State: exception applies when the recording (the prohibited act) occurs in the home	Defendant: exception applies only when the conversation itself occurs in the home	Court: exception covers acts performed in the home (recording in the home), not location of the conversation — affirmed

State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (statutory interpretation principles cited)
PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606 (statutory construction framework)
State v. Jones, 339 Or. 438 ("conversation" applies to face-to-face interactions)
South Beach Marina, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 301 Or. 524 (legislature may use broad wording to address specific problems)
State v. Dickerson, 356 Or. 822 (legislative purpose vs. statutory text)
Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 356 Or. 282 (broader statutory wording reflects policy choice)
Monaco v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar., 275 Or. 183 (legislative history cannot override clear statutory language)