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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.135 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 162.135 to 162.205

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

      162.135 Definitions for ORS 162.135 to 162.205. As used in ORS 162.135 to 162.205, unless the context requires otherwise:

      (1)(a) “Contraband” means:

      (A) Controlled substances as defined in ORS 475.005;

      (B) Drug paraphernalia as defined in ORS 475.525;

      (C) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, currency possessed by or in the control of a person confined in a correctional facility; or

      (D) Any article or thing which a person confined in a correctional facility, youth correction facility or state hospital is prohibited by statute, rule or order from obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security of such institution or any person therein.

      (b) “Contraband” does not include authorized currency possessed by a person confined in a work release facility.

      (2) “Correctional facility” means any place used for the confinement of persons charged with or convicted of a crime or otherwise confined under a court order and includes but is not limited to a youth correction facility. “Correctional facility” applies to a state hospital or a secure intensive community inpatient facility only as to persons detained therein charged with or convicted of a crime, or detained therein after having been found guilty except for insanity of a crime under ORS 161.290 to 161.373.

      (3) “Currency” means paper money and coins that are within the correctional institution.

      (4) “Custody” means the imposition of actual or constructive restraint by a peace officer or a parole and probation officer as defined in ORS 181A.355, pursuant to an arrest or court order, but does not include detention in a correctional facility, youth correction facility or a state hospital.

      (5) “Escape” means the unlawful departure of a person from custody or a correctional facility. “Escape” includes the unauthorized departure or absence from this state or failure to return to this state by a person who is under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board under ORS 161.315 to 161.351. “Escape” does not include failure to comply with provisions of a conditional release in ORS 135.245.

      (6) “Youth correction facility” means:

      (a) A youth correction facility as defined in ORS 420.005; and

      (b) A detention facility as defined in ORS 419A.004.

      (7) “State hospital” means the Oregon State Hospital and any other hospital established by law for similar purposes.

      (8) “Unauthorized departure” means the unauthorized departure of a person confined by court order in a youth correction facility or a state hospital that, because of the nature of the court order, is not a correctional facility as defined in this section, or the failure to return to confinement after any form of temporary release or transitional leave from a correctional facility. [1971 c.743 §189; 1973 c.836 §342; 1983 c.740 §28; 1983 c.815 §7; 1985 c.565 §16; 1989 c.790 §53; 1991 c.809 §1; 1993 c.33 §307; 1995 c.738 §2; 1997 c.249 §47; 1999 c.504 §1; 2001 c.295 §8; 2001 c.900 §24; 2005 c.685 §10; 2007 c.14 §3; 2011 c.708 §21; 2013 c.36 §36; 2015 c.318 §8; 2017 c.442 §20; 2019 c.213 §39; 2025 c.118 §1]

 

      162.140 [1959 c.307 §1; 1961 c.312 §1; 1963 c.499 §9; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: State v. Galligan, 816 P.2d 601 (Or. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Galligan, 816 P.2d 601 (Or. 1991). · cites it 138× “135(3) provides: "As used in ORS 162.135 to 162.205, unless the context requires otherwise: "* * * * * "(3) `Custody' means the imposition of actual or constructive restraint by a peace officer pursuant to an arrest or court order, but does not include detention in a…”
State v. McColly, 435 P.3d 715 (Or. 2019). · cites it 31× “That is, by providing that failure to appear in violation of a release agreement condition is punishable "as provided in" the failure-to-appear statutes, subsection (2) of ORS 135.”
State v. Lonergan, 176 P.3d 374 (Or. 2008). · cites it 14× “" ORS 162.135(4). Defendant was convicted of second-degree escape.”
State v. Isom, 837 P.2d 491 (Or. 1992). · cites it 8× “See generally Oregon Criminal Code of 1971, Commentary to ORS 162.135 (definition of "escape") (stating that "an inmate is considered confined within a `correctional facility' from time of original commitment until lawfully discharged, regardless of his actual presence within…”
State v. Davis, 377 P.3d 583 (Or. 2016). · cites it 7× “Defendant notes that ORS 162.135(4) defines “custody” as the imposition of “actual or constructive restraint * * * pursuant to an arrest or court order.”
State v. Ford, 142 P.3d 107 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 12× “) Given that the statutory definition of “custody” applies only “unless the context requires otherwise,” ORS 162.135, the state contends that the context requires a more expansive definition of custody in order to fulfill the statute’s purpose, which is to “punish persons who *…”
State v. Lane, 144 P.3d 927 (Or. 2006). · cites it 5× “]” ORS 162.135(2). Previously, this court has suggested that a prisoner serving a sentence may be within a correctional facility during a court appearance, if the prisoner came to the courtroom from prison and is returning to prison after that court appearance.”
State v. Langley, 839 P.2d 692 (Or. 1992). · cites it 2× “" Legislative Commentary to 1971 Oregon Criminal Code, ORS 162.135 (emphasis added). "Confined" is analogous to what the 1971 legislature called "actual restraint," while "otherwise in custody" is analogous to what the 1971 legislature called "constructive restraint.”
State v. Manley, 951 P.2d 686 (Or. 1997). · cites it 11× “Section 51 amends ORS 162.135. It narrows the definition of “escape” to exclude failure to return to custody from temporary leave.”
State v. Dillenburg, 621 P.2d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 6× “See ORS 162.135; ORS 162.155. 4 It is clear that the two terms now have distinct meanings.”
State v. Williams, 587 P.2d 1049 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 6× “The issue is whether the definition of contraband in ORS 162.135 is unconstitutionally vague. We hold that the statute is valid.”
State v. Metcalfe, 19 P.3d 374 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “1 The definitions set forth in ORS 162.135 are expressly made applicable to the crime of escape in each of its degrees, among other crimes.”
Show all 78 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.135(1) — 10 cases
State v. Williams, 587 P.2d 1049 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “The issue is whether the definition of contraband in ORS 162.135 is unconstitutionally vague. We hold that the statute is valid.”
State v. Franklin, 583 P.2d 557 (Or. 1978).
State v. Crane, 612 P.2d 735 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
State v. Meyer, 583 P.2d 553 (Or. 1978).
State v. Sarriugarte, 674 P.2d 82 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.135(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Hernandez, 61 P.3d 951 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.135(1)(a)(A) — 1 case
State v. Thaxton, 79 P.3d 897 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.135(1)(a)(D) — 3 cases
State v. Hernandez, 61 P.3d 951 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Hoard, 386 P.3d 672 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Craigen, 454 P.3d 7 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.135(2) — 20 cases
State v. Lane, 144 P.3d 927 (Or. 2006). “]” ORS 162.135(2). Previously, this court has suggested that a prisoner serving a sentence may be within a correctional facility during a court appearance, if the prisoner came to the courtroom from prison and is returning to prison after that court appearance.”
State v. McColly, 399 P.3d 1045 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Manley, 951 P.2d 686 (Or. 1997). “Section 51 amends ORS 162.135. It narrows the definition of “escape” to exclude failure to return to custody from temporary leave.”
State v. Dillenburg, 621 P.2d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “See ORS 162.135; ORS 162.155. 4 It is clear that the two terms now have distinct meanings.”
State v. McColly, 435 P.3d 715 (Or. 2019). “That is, by providing that failure to appear in violation of a release agreement condition is punishable "as provided in" the failure-to-appear statutes, subsection (2) of ORS 135.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.135(3) — 13 cases
State v. Galligan, 816 P.2d 601 (Or. 1991). “135(3) provides: "As used in ORS 162.135 to 162.205, unless the context requires otherwise: "* * * * * "(3) `Custody' means the imposition of actual or constructive restraint by a peace officer pursuant to an arrest or court order, but does not include detention in a…”
State v. Roberti, 644 P.2d 1104 (Or. 1982).
State v. Palaia, 614 P.2d 1120 (Or. 1980).
State v. Dillenburg, 621 P.2d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “See ORS 162.135; ORS 162.155. 4 It is clear that the two terms now have distinct meanings.”
State v. Swanson, 578 P.2d 411 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.135(4) — 34 cases
State v. McColly, 435 P.3d 715 (Or. 2019). “That is, by providing that failure to appear in violation of a release agreement condition is punishable "as provided in" the failure-to-appear statutes, subsection (2) of ORS 135.”
State v. Davis, 377 P.3d 583 (Or. 2016). “Defendant notes that ORS 162.135(4) defines “custody” as the imposition of “actual or constructive restraint * * * pursuant to an arrest or court order.”
State v. Galligan, 816 P.2d 601 (Or. 1991). “135(3) provides: "As used in ORS 162.135 to 162.205, unless the context requires otherwise: "* * * * * "(3) `Custody' means the imposition of actual or constructive restraint by a peace officer pursuant to an arrest or court order, but does not include detention in a…”
State v. Isom, 837 P.2d 491 (Or. 1992). “See generally Oregon Criminal Code of 1971, Commentary to ORS 162.135 (definition of "escape") (stating that "an inmate is considered confined within a `correctional facility' from time of original commitment until lawfully discharged, regardless of his actual presence within…”
State v. Ford, 142 P.3d 107 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “) Given that the statutory definition of “custody” applies only “unless the context requires otherwise,” ORS 162.135, the state contends that the context requires a more expansive definition of custody in order to fulfill the statute’s purpose, which is to “punish persons who *…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.135(5) — 18 cases
State v. Lonergan, 176 P.3d 374 (Or. 2008). “" ORS 162.135(4). Defendant was convicted of second-degree escape.”
State v. Lonergan, 149 P.3d 1215 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Davis, 377 P.3d 583 (Or. 2016). “Defendant notes that ORS 162.135(4) defines “custody” as the imposition of “actual or constructive restraint * * * pursuant to an arrest or court order.”
State v. Fore, 62 P.3d 400 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Arellano-Sanchez v. Thrasher, 374 Or. 623 (Or. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.135(7) — 3 cases
State v. Galligan, 816 P.2d 601 (Or. 1991). “135(3) provides: "As used in ORS 162.135 to 162.205, unless the context requires otherwise: "* * * * * "(3) `Custody' means the imposition of actual or constructive restraint by a peace officer pursuant to an arrest or court order, but does not include detention in a…”
State v. Isom, 837 P.2d 491 (Or. 1992). “See generally Oregon Criminal Code of 1971, Commentary to ORS 162.135 (definition of "escape") (stating that "an inmate is considered confined within a `correctional facility' from time of original commitment until lawfully discharged, regardless of his actual presence within…”
State v. Ford, 142 P.3d 107 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “) Given that the statutory definition of “custody” applies only “unless the context requires otherwise,” ORS 162.135, the state contends that the context requires a more expansive definition of custody in order to fulfill the statute’s purpose, which is to “punish persons who *…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.135(8) — 6 cases
State v. Manley, 951 P.2d 686 (Or. 1997). “Section 51 amends ORS 162.135. It narrows the definition of “escape” to exclude failure to return to custody from temporary leave.”
State v. Ford, 142 P.3d 107 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “) Given that the statutory definition of “custody” applies only “unless the context requires otherwise,” ORS 162.135, the state contends that the context requires a more expansive definition of custody in order to fulfill the statute’s purpose, which is to “punish persons who *…”
State v. Cadger, 312 P.3d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Gruver, 310 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Joseph Charles Elvig, 213 P.3d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.135(l)(a)(D) — 2 cases
State v. Hernandez, 61 P.3d 951 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Hoard, 386 P.3d 672 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.135(l)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Long, 843 P.2d 420 (Or. 1992).
State v. Hernandez, 61 P.3d 951 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
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.