Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.490 (2026)

Status of enrollees

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

      144.490 Status of enrollees. (1) A person enrolled, or assigned to participate, in the work release program is not an agent, employee or servant of a Department of Corrections institution, the department or this state:

      (a) While working, seeking gainful employment or otherwise participating, in an adult in custody work program; or

      (b) While going to the place of such employment or work assignment from the place where the person is quartered, or while returning therefrom.

      (2) For purposes of this chapter, a person enrolled, or assigned to participate, in the work release program established under ORS 144.420 is considered to be an adult in custody in a Department of Corrections institution. [1965 c.463 §§11,13; 1987 c.320 §73; 1995 c.384 §8; 2019 c.213 §36]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1968–1994 · leading case: State v. Hutcheson, 447 P.2d 92 (Or. 1968).
State v. Hutcheson, 447 P.2d 92 (Or. 1968). · cites it 3× “ORS 144.490 (2) provides that a person enrolled in the work release program is considered to be an inmate of the penal institution to which he was sentenced.”
Chochrek v. Cupp, 541 P.2d 495 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “As an additional reason for my conclusion I call attention to the following: We are dealing here with an inmate of our penitentiary who was enrolled in an educational release program at the University of Oregon. The educational release program is officially part of the work…”
Plumb v. Prinslow, 847 F. Supp. 1509 (D. Or. 1994). “I also note that ORS 144.490(2) provides that a person enrolled in an ODOC work release program is considered to be an inmate of an ODOC institution.”
Kneefe v. Sullivan, 465 P.2d 741 (Or. Ct. App. 1970). “He argues that he was sentenced to the custody of the Corrections Division in Marion County and his temporary housing in Multnomah County in no way severed the complete control and custody from the Corrections Division in Marion County. The petitioner was legally an inmate of…”
Alexander v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 783 P.2d 1034 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “ORS 144.490(2) provides: “For purposes of this chapter, a person enrolled in the work release program established under ORS 144.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.490(2) — 4 cases
Chochrek v. Cupp, 541 P.2d 495 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). “As an additional reason for my conclusion I call attention to the following: We are dealing here with an inmate of our penitentiary who was enrolled in an educational release program at the University of Oregon. The educational release program is officially part of the work…”
Plumb v. Prinslow, 847 F. Supp. 1509 (D. Or. 1994). “I also note that ORS 144.490(2) provides that a person enrolled in an ODOC work release program is considered to be an inmate of an ODOC institution.”
Kneefe v. Sullivan, 465 P.2d 741 (Or. Ct. App. 1970). “He argues that he was sentenced to the custody of the Corrections Division in Marion County and his temporary housing in Multnomah County in no way severed the complete control and custody from the Corrections Division in Marion County. The petitioner was legally an inmate of…”
Alexander v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 783 P.2d 1034 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “ORS 144.490(2) provides: “For purposes of this chapter, a person enrolled in the work release program established under ORS 144.”
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.