Sit-lie enforcement has officially been suspended

Via the Portland Police Bureau…. (3:00P.M.)


10 responses to “Sit-lie enforcement has officially been suspended

  1. 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:

    166.025ยน 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.


  2. ok, I am reading that, exactly where does it say in Disorderly Conduct “Blocking Sidewalk”?

  3. ooops, should read it all the way thru slowly first… (d) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way;

  4. Joanne Zuhl

    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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.


  7. Statutes, not statues…!

  8. Has anyone ever tried to bring charges against restaurants that take up the whole sidewalk with their tables and waiters? THAT is obstruction!

  9. Pingback: July 9 Newsletter « Oregon Opportunity Network

  10. 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

Comments are closed as of Dec 17 2012 to prepare for migration of content to our new News site.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s