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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.175 (2026)

Unauthorized departure

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

      162.175 Unauthorized departure. (1) A person commits the crime of unauthorized departure if:

      (a) The person makes an unauthorized departure; or

      (b) Not being an adult in custody therein, the person aids another in making or attempting to make an unauthorized departure.

      (2) Unauthorized departure is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §193; 1983 c.815 §8; 1989 c.790 §54; 2019 c.213 §40]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1991–2020 · 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 21× “" ORS 162.175. The defendant was an inmate at a corrections facility, the Multnomah County Restitution Center (MCRC).”
State v. Isom, 837 P.2d 491 (Or. 1992). · cites it 2× “ORS 162.175. [3] Defendant's brief is unclear as to the authority that permits him to benefit from a change in law.”
State v. Manley, 951 P.2d 686 (Or. 1997). · cites it 7× “” ORS 162.175; 162.135(8). The legislature has specified, however, that one particular form of unauthorized absence — a DOC' inmate’s unauthorized absence from a “work release” program — ^“[constitutes an escape from a correctional facility under ORS 162.”
State v. Ford, 142 P.3d 107 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “The issue in Galligan was whether an inmate at a correctional facility who was given authorization to leave but failed to return could be charged with unauthorized departure under ORS 162.175. 312 Or at 37 . “Unauthorized departure” is defined, in part, as “failure to return to…”
Delehant v. Bd. on Police Standards & Training, 839 P.2d 737 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “" [2] ORS 162.175(1) provides: "A person commits the crime of false swearing if the person makes a false sworn statement, knowing it to be false.”
State v. Cockrell, 10 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “He acknowledges that his conduct did constitute the crime of unauthorized departure, as defined in ORS 162.175, of which he was also convicted.”
State v. Gruver, 310 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× ““Unauthorized departure,” a Class A misdemeanor, ORS 162.175, is “the failure to return to custody after any form of temporary release *** from a correctional facility,” ORS 162.”
State v. Cadger, 312 P.3d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Defendant contends that he was not “constructively confined” within the Douglas County Jail, but instead was on a “form of temporary release” and, therefore, should have been charged with “unauthorized departure,” ORS 162.175, a misdemeanor. As relevant to this case, ORS 162.”
State v. Croghan, 986 P.2d 579 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “2 There is no evidence that any release agreement was executed. Therefore, defendant was not conditionally released and his departure was not excluded from the definition of escape.”
State v. Joseph Charles Elvig, 213 P.3d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “«« :{c * * * “Section 52 [adding the crime of ‘unauthorized departure’] amends ORS 162.175 to then expand the crime of unauthorized departure to reflect the change made to the escape definition and the definition of unauthorized departure.”
State v. White, 459 P.3d 965 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “White PER CURIAM Defendant pleaded guilty in the first of these con- solidated cases to unauthorized departure, ORS 162.175, and was sentenced to a jail term and ordered to pay $400 in attorney fees and a $100 fine.”
State v. Gruver, 327 P.3d 547 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “On appeal, defendant argued that leaving the shelter was neither of those crimes but was instead a violation of a different statute, ORS 162.175, which criminalizes “unauthorized departure.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.175(1) — 2 cases
Delehant v. Bd. on Police Standards & Training, 839 P.2d 737 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “" [2] ORS 162.175(1) provides: "A person commits the crime of false swearing if the person makes a false sworn statement, knowing it to be false.”
State v. Joseph Charles Elvig, 213 P.3d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “«« :{c * * * “Section 52 [adding the crime of ‘unauthorized departure’] amends ORS 162.175 to then expand the crime of unauthorized departure to reflect the change made to the escape definition and the definition of unauthorized departure.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.175(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Galligan, 816 P.2d 601 (Or. 1991). “" ORS 162.175. The defendant was an inmate at a corrections facility, the Multnomah County Restitution Center (MCRC).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.175(l)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Galligan, 816 P.2d 601 (Or. 1991). “" ORS 162.175. The defendant was an inmate at a corrections facility, the Multnomah County Restitution Center (MCRC).”
State v. Manley, 951 P.2d 686 (Or. 1997). “” ORS 162.175; 162.135(8). The legislature has specified, however, that one particular form of unauthorized absence — a DOC' inmate’s unauthorized absence from a “work release” program — ^“[constitutes an escape from a correctional facility under ORS 162.”
State v. Joseph Charles Elvig, 213 P.3d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “«« :{c * * * “Section 52 [adding the crime of ‘unauthorized departure’] amends ORS 162.175 to then expand the crime of unauthorized departure to reflect the change made to the escape definition and the definition of unauthorized departure.”
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.