City of Portland v. Tyler

Court of Appeals of Oregon

City of Portland v. Tyler

725 P.2d 949, 81 Or. App. 441

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 24, 1986

DocketDA 282159-8407; CA A35924

StatusPublished

This text of 725 P.2d 949 (City of Portland v. Tyler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Portland v. Tyler, 725 P.2d 949, 81 Or. App. 441 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with indecent exposure in violation of § 14.24.060 of the Portland City Code. The trial court granted her pretrial motion to dismiss on the ground that the ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. Subsequently, this court interpreted the ordinance narrowly, holding that it is aimed at “the prohibition of public nudity or indecent exposure [which is] not intended as a protected symbolic or communicative act,” City of Portland v. Gatewood, 76 Or App 74, 82, 708 P2d 615 (1985), rev den 300 Or 477 (1986), and is intended to “protect the public from the possible disruptive effects and other negative results that public nudity could create.” 76 Or App at 80. Accordingly, the ordinance is not, as construed in Gatewood, overbroad. Whether it is unconstitutional as applied to the as yet judicially unknown facts on which the charge is based will depend on what is developed at trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with indecent exposure in violation of § 14.24.060 of the Portland City Code. The trial court granted her pretrial motion to dismiss on the ground that the ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. Subsequently, this court interpreted the ordinance narrowly, holding that it is aimed at “the prohibition of public nudity or indecent exposure [which is] not intended as a protected symbolic or communicative act,” City of Portland v. Gatewood, 76 Or App 74, 82, 708 P2d 615 (1985), rev den 300 Or 477 (1986), and is intended to “protect the public from the possible disruptive effects and other negative results that public nudity could create.” 76 Or App at 80. Accordingly, the ordinance is not, as construed in Gatewood, overbroad. Whether it is unconstitutional as applied to the as yet judicially unknown facts on which the charge is based will depend on what is developed at trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 P.2d 949, 81 Or. App. 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-portland-v-tyler-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack