privileges and immunities challenge in Oregon

1999Huddleston v. Sawyer, 324 Or. 597, 610-11 , 932 P.2d 1145 (1997) (criminal defendant's equal privileges and immunities argument concerning distinctions based on criminal history failed because plaintiff "had the opportunity to remain in the allegedly favored class by obeying the law"); State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 240 , 630 P.2d 810 , cert. den. 454 U.S. 1084 , 102 S.Ct. 640 , 70 L.Ed.2d 619 (1981) (a privileges and immunities challenge will not succeed if the law leaves it open to anyone to bring himself or herself within the favored class on equal terms).

1999Huddleston v. Sawyer, 324 Or. 597, 610-11 , 932 P.2d 1145 (1997) (criminal defendant's equal privileges and immunities argument concerning distinctions based on criminal history failed because plaintiff "had the opportunity to remain in the allegedly favored class by obeying the law"); State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 240 , 630 P.2d 810 , cert. den. 454 U.S. 1084 , 102 S.Ct. 640 , 70 L.Ed.2d 619 (1981) (a privileges and immunities challenge will not succeed if the law leaves it open to anyone to bring himself or herself within the favored class on equal terms).

1999Huddleston v. Sawyer, 324 Or. 597, 610-11 , 932 P.2d 1145 (1997) (criminal defendant's equal privileges and immunities argument concerning distinctions based on criminal history failed because plaintiff "had the opportunity to remain in the allegedly favored class by obeying the law"); State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 240 , 630 P.2d 810 , cert. den. 454 U.S. 1084 , 102 S.Ct. 640 , 70 L.Ed.2d 619 (1981) (a privileges and immunities challenge will not succeed if the law leaves it open to anyone to bring himself or herself within the favored class on equal terms).

1999See generally State ex rel Huddleston v. Sawyer, 324 Or 597, 610-11 , 932 P2d 1145 (1997) (criminal defendant’s equal privileges and immunities argument concerning distinctions based on criminal history failed because plaintiff “had the opportunity to remain in the allegedly favored class by obeying the law”); State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 240 , 640 P2d 810 , cert den 454 US 1084 (1981) (a privileges and immunities challenge will not succeed if the law leaves it open to anyone to bring himself or herself within the favored class on equal terms).

1999Huddleston v. Sawyer, 324 Or. 597, 610-11 , 932 P.2d 1145 (1997) (criminal defendant's equal privileges and immunities argument concerning distinctions based on criminal history failed because plaintiff "had the opportunity to remain in the allegedly favored class by obeying the law"); State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 240 , 630 P.2d 810 , cert. den. 454 U.S. 1084 , 102 S.Ct. 640 , 70 L.Ed.2d 619 (1981) (a privileges and immunities challenge will not succeed if the law leaves it open to anyone to bring himself or herself within the favored class on equal terms).

1992However, a privileges and immunities challenge will not succeed if “the law leaves it open to anyone to bring himself or herself within the favored class on equal terms.” State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 240 , 630 P2d 810 , cert den 454 US 1084 , 102 S Ct 640 , 70 L Ed 2d 619 (1981).

1999Huddleston v. Sawyer, 324 Or. 597, 610-11 , 932 P.2d 1145 (1997) (criminal defendant's equal privileges and immunities argument concerning distinctions based on criminal history failed because plaintiff "had the opportunity to remain in the allegedly favored class by obeying the law"); State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 240 , 630 P.2d 810 , cert. den. 454 U.S. 1084 , 102 S.Ct. 640 , 70 L.Ed.2d 619 (1981) (a privileges and immunities challenge will not succeed if the law leaves it open to anyone to bring himself or herself within the favored class on equal terms).

1992However, a privileges and immunities challenge will not succeed if “the law leaves it open to anyone to bring himself or herself within the favored class on equal terms.” State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 240 , 630 P2d 810 , cert den 454 US 1084 , 102 S Ct 640 , 70 L Ed 2d 619 (1981).

2022Defendant invokes State v. Savastano, 354 Or 64, 96 , 309 P3d 1083 (2013), which made clear that a person can bring an individ- ual claim that the state, in its exercise of prosecutorial dis- cretion, “in fact denied defendant individually * * * an equal privilege * * * with other citizens of the state similarly situ- ated” in violation of the privileges and immunities clause.

2022Defendant invokes State v. Savastano, 354 Or 64, 96 , 309 P3d 1083 (2013), which made clear that a person can bring an individ- ual claim that the state, in its exercise of prosecutorial dis- cretion, “in fact denied defendant individually * * * an equal privilege * * * with other citizens of the state similarly situ- ated” in violation of the privileges and immunities clause.

2003Defendant also argues that an interpretation of ORS 166.250(2)(b) that excludes him from that exception violates the privileges and immunities clause of Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 11 Although defendant concedes that, as a nonowner employee of a business, he is not a member of a suspect class, he argues that the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that “it is rational for the legislature to generally require Oregon citizens * * * to obtain a license, while * * * allowing business owner

2000However, defendant concedes that, as an employee, he is not a member of a “true class.” See Northwest Advancement v. Bureau of Labor, 96 Or App 133, 142 , 772 P2d 934 , rev den 308 Or 315 (1989), cert den 495 US 932 (1990).

2000However, defendant concedes that, as an employee, he is not a member of a “true class.” See Northwest Advancement v. Bureau of Labor, 96 Or App 133, 142 , 772 P2d 934 , rev den 308 Or 315 (1989), cert den 495 US 932 (1990).

2000However, defendant concedes that, as an employee, he is not a member of a “true class.” See Northwest Advancement v. Bureau of Labor, 96 Or App 133, 142 , 772 P2d 934 , rev den 308 Or 315 (1989), cert den 495 US 932 (1990).

1994In State v. Buchholz, 309 Or. 442, 444 , 788 P.2d 998 (1990), the defendant asserted that a district attorney's failure to offer the same plea bargain to the defendant as had been offered to a codefendant violated the privileges and immunities clause of Article I, section 20.

1994In State v. Buchholz, 309 Or. 442, 444 , 788 P.2d 998 (1990), the defendant asserted that a district attorney's failure to offer the same plea bargain to the defendant as had been offered to a codefendant violated the privileges and immunities clause of Article I, section 20.

1974We observed that such conduct can be singled out for criminal sanctions because possession of a coneealable weapon “is plainly dangerous, especially if possessed by one whose past conduct revealed a disregard for law and the normal moral restraints.” We further observed that the statute “had in mind * * those whose past conviction of a felony showed an unsocial attitude.” 217 Or at 616 .