Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.542 (2026)

Probation conditions related to medical use of cannabis

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      137.542 Probation conditions related to medical use of cannabis. (1) As used in this section, “cannabinoid concentrate,” “cannabinoid extract,” “medical cannabinoid product,” “registry identification card” and “usable marijuana” have the meanings given those terms in ORS 475C.777.

      (2) Notwithstanding ORS 137.540, if a person who holds a registry identification card is sentenced to probation, supervision conditions related to the use of usable marijuana, medical cannabinoid products, cannabinoid concentrates or cannabinoid extracts must be imposed in the same manner as the court would impose supervision conditions related to prescription drugs. [2016 c.24 §51; 2019 c.292 §8]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2018–2022 · leading case: State v. Bowden, 425 P.3d 475 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bowden, 425 P.3d 475 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 10× “540(1)(b) and ORS 137.542. As to the first condition, defendant asserts that it directly conflicts with *817 ORS 137.”
State v. Kilgore, 435 P.3d 817 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “540(1)(b) and ORS 137.542," 292 Or. App. at 819 , 425 P.”
State v. Miller, 450 P.3d 578 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “540(1)(b) and ORS 137.542”); see also State v. Kilgore, 295 Or App 602, 604-05 , 435 P3d 817 (2019).”
State v. Heaston, 482 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “” The state also argues that, in ORS 137.542(2), the legislature enacted a “special exemption from the condition in ORS 137.”
State v. Harper, 447 P.3d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “540(1)(b), and that exception applies to those persons who have a marijuana medical registry card, ORS 137.542. The sentencing court does not have the discretion to impose a probation condition that runs counter to ORS 137.”
State v. Cunningham, 451 P.3d 268 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “” Defendant argues that those conditions are unlawful because, under ORS 137.542(2), medical marijuana is required to be treated the same as any other prescription medication.”
State v. Rhamy, 431 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “He argues that, under ORS 137.542(2), the conditions of supervision for an OMMA registry cardholder "must be imposed in the same manner as the conditions of supervision of a person sentenced to probation related to prescription drugs," and that the court's unqualified…”
State v. Jerscheid, 432 P.3d 380 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “1 On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing special probation conditions restricting defendant's ability to participate in the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP), contrary to ORS 137.542. The state concedes the error.”
State v. Fryer, 435 P.3d 824 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “" 1 He contends that, under ORS 137.542(2), 2 the court "lacked the authority to interfere with [his] ability to participate in the OMMP," and he requests resentencing.”
State v. Jackson, 450 P.3d 580 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “The state concedes that the condition prohibiting defendant from participating in Oregon’s medical marijuana program is invalid “at a minimum” under ORS 137.542(2). The state further concedes that the other conditions are invalid if defendant holds a medical marijuana registry…”
State v. Newton, 457 P.3d 1117 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “540(1)(b) and ORS 137.542). The state concedes the error.”
State v. Carlson, 504 P.3d 1284 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 14× “540(1)(b) limited the court’s ability to impose spe- cial conditions regarding marijuana, under the principle articulated in Schwab, 95 Or App at 597 ; and (2) because ORS 137.542 limited the court’s ability to impose special conditions regarding marijuana on a registry…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.542(2) — 12 cases
State v. Kilgore, 435 P.3d 817 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “540(1)(b) and ORS 137.542," 292 Or. App. at 819 , 425 P.”
State v. Heaston, 482 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “” The state also argues that, in ORS 137.542(2), the legislature enacted a “special exemption from the condition in ORS 137.”
State v. Bowden, 425 P.3d 475 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “540(1)(b) and ORS 137.542. As to the first condition, defendant asserts that it directly conflicts with *817 ORS 137.”
State v. Miller, 450 P.3d 578 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “540(1)(b) and ORS 137.542”); see also State v. Kilgore, 295 Or App 602, 604-05 , 435 P3d 817 (2019).”
State v. Cunningham, 451 P.3d 268 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “” Defendant argues that those conditions are unlawful because, under ORS 137.542(2), medical marijuana is required to be treated the same as any other prescription medication.”
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.