State v. Dameron

789 P.2d 707, 101 Or. App. 237, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 317
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided April 4, 1990·No. D881992M; CA A60258·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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

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

789 P.2d 707 (State v. Dameron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Dameron
853 P.2d 1285 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1993)
Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen
849 P.2d 446 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1993)
State v. Purdue
826 P.2d 1037 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1992)
State v. Dameron
789 P.2d 707 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1990)