State v. Dameron

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Dameron

789 P.2d 707, 101 Or. App. 237, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 317

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 4, 1990

DocketD881992M; CA A60258

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 789 P.2d 707 (State v. Dameron) 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

State v. Dameron, 789 P.2d 707, 101 Or. App. 237, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 317 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant 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.

This case is not distinguishable from State v. Cargill, 100 Or App 336, 786 P2d 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.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant 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.

This case is not distinguishable from State v. Cargill, 100 Or App 336, 786 P2d 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.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

789 P.2d 707, 101 Or. App. 237, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dameron-orctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack