Via the Portland Police Bureau…. (3:00P.M.)
-
Search It!
-
Recent Entries
- Two homeless men shot while they slept
- Amanda Fritz, Mary Nolan and money: The dollars and cents behind the race
- Extra! Extra!
- In Memoriam: National program lays to rest 1,000th homeless veteran
- Is turning manufactured housing parks into resident-owned cooperatives a key to preserving Oregon’s stock of affordable housing?
- Vendor Profile: ‘It’s not the cards you’re dealt, it’s how you play them’
- Decolonize PDX applies education to practice freedom
- A deep divide wrought by the discovery of the double helix
- Portland Afoot is getting around
- Mayor Adams: Local obligations will suffer under planned federal budget cuts
-
Links
What’s not noted in the police bureau’s letter is that the act must either be with intent or reckless. Which could make for some interesting interpretations by police (and security guards who are basically hired witnesses).
Here’s the Oregon statute that the police are now relying on:
166.025¹ Disorderly conduct in the second degree
(1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
(a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior;
(b) Makes unreasonable noise;
(c) Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority;
(d) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way;
(e) Congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse;
(f) Initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false, concerning an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe or other emergency; or
(g) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.
(2) Disorderly conduct in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor.
Joanne
ok, I am reading that, exactly where does it say in Disorderly Conduct “Blocking Sidewalk”?
thanks
Patrick
ooops, should read it all the way thru slowly first… (d) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way;
I’m particularly curious about the interpretation of “obstruct.” Is having to walk a step to the right a minor hinderance, or a Class B misdemeaner? Still leaves a lot up to police interpretation, which measures up against the realities of the streets, oh, and civil rights.
The first paragraph of Sizer’s order is false. In his written opinion Bushong did not state persons who get in the way of pedestrian traffic “should be prosecuted under the disorderly conduct statute,” etc.
It’s a peculiar misuse of the judge’s opinion, and, again, reveals disappointing thinking on the part of the chief.
Way to miss the point entirely, Rosie. The point is not to shoehorn some existing law into PBA’s
desire for clear sidewalks–it’s to begin recognizing that there is no legal justification for attempting to “move along” those with nowhere else to go. It’d be the same thing as a memo in the wake
of the anti-camping repeal, saying to use “defaulting the inkeeper” statues for failure to pay city lodging tax.
Boooo.
Statutes, not statues…!
Has anyone ever tried to bring charges against restaurants that take up the whole sidewalk with their tables and waiters? THAT is obstruction!
Pingback: July 9 Newsletter « Oregon Opportunity Network
Pingback: What does the arrest of a Harvard Professor and peoeple on the streets in Portland have in common? Disorderly conduct. « For those who can’t afford free speech