regulatory framework in Oregon

2005Tidyman, 306 Or. at 185-86 , 759 P.2d 242 .

2005Tidyman, 306 Or at 185-86 .

2021Claimants are likely not confronted with such hazards where the inquiries are “neu- tral on their face and directed at the public at large” and part of an “essentially noncriminal and regulatory area of inquiry.” Albertson v. SACB, 382 US 70, 79 , 86 S Ct 194 , 15 L Ed 2d 165 (1965).

2021Claimants are likely not confronted with such hazards where the inquiries are “neu- tral on their face and directed at the public at large” and part of an “essentially noncriminal and regulatory area of inquiry.” Albertson v. SACB, 382 US 70, 79 , 86 S Ct 194 , 15 L Ed 2d 165 (1965).

2021Cite as 313 Or App 748 (2021) 759 However, the analysis—whether a defendant made the statements freely without inducement—is complicated when the government requires certain disclosures as part of a regulatory framework.

2021Although defendant was required to report to law enforcement, the information he provided did Cite as 313 Or App 748 (2021) 767 not imply or admit his involvement in any criminal activity.

2021When a regulatory framework compels certain disclosures, a claimant seeking to invoke the privilege must “show that the compelled disclo- sures will themselves confront the claimant with substantial hazards of self-incrimination.” California v. Byers, 402 US 424, 429 , 91 S Ct 1535 , 29 L Ed 2d 9 (1971) (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2021When a regulatory framework compels certain disclosures, a claimant seeking to invoke the privilege must “show that the compelled disclo- sures will themselves confront the claimant with substantial hazards of self-incrimination.” California v. Byers, 402 US 424, 429 , 91 S Ct 1535 , 29 L Ed 2d 9 (1971) (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2021The primary case that informs our understanding of that exception is State v. Monroe, 101 Or App 379 , 790 P2d 1188 (1990).

2021The primary case that informs our understanding of that exception is State v. Monroe, 101 Or App 379 , 790 P2d 1188 (1990).

2005If there are available administrative procedures through which landowners may seek to modify the effects of regulations on the use of their property and those procedures provide a possibility that development could occur on the property, the landowners must pursue those administrative procedures before a takings claim may be considered “ripe.” See Suess Builders v. City of Beaverton, 294 Or 254 , 656 P2d 306 (1982) (property has not been taken where possibility of relief from regulatory restriction remains available); Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 186 Or App 291, 303 , 63 P3d 598 ,

2005As we explained in Nelson v. City of Lake Oswego, 126 Or App 416, 421 , 869 P2d 350 (1994) (quoting MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 US 340, 348 , 106 S Ct 2561 , 91 L Ed 2d 285 (1986)), it follows from the nature of a regulatory claim that an authoritative *390 determination of how the regulation applies to the property is an “ ‘essential prerequisite’ ” to asserting a takings claim in court.

2005As we explained in Nelson v. City of Lake Oswego, 126 Or App 416, 421 , 869 P2d 350 (1994) (quoting MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 US 340, 348 , 106 S Ct 2561 , 91 L Ed 2d 285 (1986)), it follows from the nature of a regulatory claim that an authoritative *390 determination of how the regulation applies to the property is an “ ‘essential prerequisite’ ” to asserting a takings claim in court.

2005If there are available administrative procedures through which landowners may seek to modify the effects of regulations on the use of their property and those procedures provide a possibility that development could occur on the property, the landowners must pursue those administrative procedures before a takings claim may be considered “ripe.” See Suess Builders v. City of Beaverton, 294 Or 254 , 656 P2d 306 (1982) (property has not been taken where possibility of relief from regulatory restriction remains available); Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 186 Or App 291, 303 , 63 P3d 598 ,

2005If there are available administrative procedures through which landowners may seek to modify the effects of regulations on the use of their property and those procedures provide a possibility that development could occur on the property, the landowners must pursue those administrative procedures before a takings claim may be considered “ripe.” See Suess Builders v. City of Beaverton, 294 Or 254 , 656 P2d 306 (1982) (property has not been taken where possibility of relief from regulatory restriction remains available); Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 186 Or App 291, 303 , 63 P3d 598 ,

2005If there are available administrative procedures through which landowners may seek to modify the effects of regulations on the use of their property and those procedures provide a possibility that development could occur on the property, the landowners must pursue those administrative procedures before a takings claim may be considered “ripe.” See Suess Builders v. City of Beaverton, 294 Or 254 , 656 P2d 306 (1982) (property has not been taken where possibility of relief from regulatory restriction remains available); Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 186 Or App 291, 303 , 63 P3d 598 ,

2005If there are available administrative procedures through which landowners may seek to modify the effects of regulations on the use of their property and those procedures provide a possibility that development could occur on the property, the landowners must pursue those administrative procedures before a takings claim may be considered “ripe.” See Suess Builders v. City of Beaverton, 294 Or 254 , 656 P2d 306 (1982) (property has not been taken where possibility of relief from regulatory restriction remains available); Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 186 Or App 291, 303 , 63 P3d 598 ,

2005As we explained in Nelson v. City of Lake Oswego, 126 Or App 416, 421 , 869 P2d 350 (1994) (quoting MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 US 340, 348 , 106 S Ct 2561 , 91 L Ed 2d 285 (1986)), it follows from the nature of a regulatory claim that an authoritative *390 determination of how the regulation applies to the property is an “ ‘essential prerequisite’ ” to asserting a takings claim in court.

2005As we explained in Nelson v. City of Lake Oswego, 126 Or App 416, 421 , 869 P2d 350 (1994) (quoting MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 US 340, 348 , 106 S Ct 2561 , 91 L Ed 2d 285 (1986)), it follows from the nature of a regulatory claim that an authoritative *390 determination of how the regulation applies to the property is an “ ‘essential prerequisite’ ” to asserting a takings claim in court.

1977In State ex rel Accident Prevention Div. v. Foster, 31 Or App 291 , 570 P2d 398 (1977), we relied upon Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523 , 87 S Ct 1727 , 18 L Ed 2d 930 (1967), and held that an administrative inspection need not be based upon cause to believe that evidence or fruit of an actual regulatory violation is on *[302] the premises.

1977In State ex rel Accident Prevention Div. v. Foster, 31 Or App 291 , 570 P2d 398 (1977), we relied upon Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523 , 87 S Ct 1727 , 18 L Ed 2d 930 (1967), and held that an administrative inspection need not be based upon cause to believe that evidence or fruit of an actual regulatory violation is on *[302] the premises.

1977In State ex rel Accident Prevention Div. v. Foster, 31 Or App 291 , 570 P2d 398 (1977), we relied upon Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523 , 87 S Ct 1727 , 18 L Ed 2d 930 (1967), and held that an administrative inspection need not be based upon cause to believe that evidence or fruit of an actual regulatory violation is on *[302] the premises.

1977In State ex rel Accident Prevention Div. v. Foster, 31 Or App 291 , 570 P2d 398 (1977), we relied upon Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523 , 87 S Ct 1727 , 18 L Ed 2d 930 (1967), and held that an administrative inspection need not be based upon cause to believe that evidence or fruit of an actual regulatory violation is on *[302] the premises.