133.739 Civil
damages for willful interception, disclosure or use of communications; attorney
fees; defense; effect on other remedies. (1) Any person whose wire, electronic or oral
communication was intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of ORS 133.724 or
133.737 shall have a civil cause of action against any person who willfully
intercepts, discloses or uses, or procures any other person to intercept,
disclose or use such communication and shall be entitled to recover from any
such person:
(a) Actual
damages but not less than damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each
day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater; and
(b) Punitive
damages.
(2) A good faith
reliance on a court order or legislative authorization shall constitute a
complete defense to any civil action brought under this section.
(3) Nothing in
ORS 41.910, 133.721 to 133.739 and 133.992 is intended to abrogate any other
private civil remedy for invasion of privacy.
(4) Except as
provided in subsection (5) of this section, the court may award reasonable
attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action under this section.
(5) The court may
not award attorney fees to a prevailing defendant under the provisions of
subsection (4) of this section if the action under this section is maintained
as a class action pursuant to ORCP 32. [1979 c.716 §11; 1981 c.897 §38; 1989
c.983 §13; 1995 c.696 §16]
133.740 [Renumbered 135.145]
VIDEO CAMERAS WORN BY
LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1984–2011 · leading case:
State v. Pottle, 677 P.2d 1 (Or. 1984).
State v. Pottle, 677 P.2d 1 (Or. 1984).
· cites it 2× “737 shall have a civil cause of action against any person who wilfully intercepts, discloses or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use such communication and shall be entitled to recover from any such person: (a) Actual damages but not less than damages…”
State v. Slowikowski, 743 P.2d 1126 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “721 to ORS 133.739; see State v. Pottle, 296 Or.”
State v. Tucker, 740 P.2d 182 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“739, were adopted to bring state law into line with federal standards in Title III of the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2520 , we should look for guidance to federal law, which allows such impeachment use, when construing the Oregon statutes.”
Gill v. City of Eugene, 797 P.2d 399 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiff brought this action against the defendant city under former ORS 133.739. He alleges that on August 15, 1986, Becky Hanson-Jordan, a city police officer, violated then applicable statutory provisions relating to interception of oral communications by wearing a body wire…”
Snyder v. Espino-Brown, 252 P.3d 318 (Or. 2011).
“, ORS 133.739(1) (person whose communication is intercepted has claim for relief and is “entitled” to recover damages); ORS 646.”
Gill v. City of Eugene, 803 P.2d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“We held that, under former ORS 133.739, the limitation period had run against plaintiffs claim, because the period commenced when the interception occurred.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.739(1) — 2 cases
Snyder v. Espino-Brown, 252 P.3d 318 (Or. 2011).
“, ORS 133.739(1) (person whose communication is intercepted has claim for relief and is “entitled” to recover damages); ORS 646.”
Gill v. City of Eugene, 797 P.2d 399 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“Plaintiff brought this action against the defendant city under former ORS 133.739. He alleges that on August 15, 1986, Becky Hanson-Jordan, a city police officer, violated then applicable statutory provisions relating to interception of oral communications by wearing a body wire…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.