162.235
Obstructing governmental or judicial administration. (1) A person commits the crime of
obstructing governmental or judicial administration if the person:
(a) Intentionally
obstructs, impairs or hinders the administration of law or other governmental
or judicial function by means of intimidation, force, physical or economic
interference or obstacle;
(b) With intent
to defraud, engages in the business of or acts in the capacity of a notary
public as defined in ORS 194.215 without having received a commission as a
notary public from the Secretary of State; or
(c) With intent
to defraud, engages in the business of or acts in the capacity of an
immigration consultant, as defined in ORS 9.280, in violation of ORS 9.160.
(2)(a) This
section does not apply to the obstruction of unlawful governmental or judicial
action or interference with the making of an arrest.
(b) Subsection
(1)(a) of this section does not apply to the act of informing another person of
the other person’s civil or constitutional rights.
(3) Obstructing
governmental or judicial administration is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §198;
1981 c.902 §1; 2016 c.47 §1; 2025 c.246 §1]
162.240 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case:
State v. Gaines
State v. Gaines (2009)
or · cites it 15×
“At the close of the state’s evidence, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that her oral refusal to go to the booking area in the basement to have her picture taken did not constitute a means of “physical * * * interference or obstacle” within the meaning of ORS…”
Clavette v. Sweeney (2001)
ord · cites it 8×
“And he’s got a fire in the back yard and won’t let us on to put it out and ran us out of there.”
State v. Mattila (1986)
orctapp · cites it 6×
“ORS 162.235. 1 He contends that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer to the complaint, in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal, in denying his motion to suppress evidence and in instructing the jury.”
Westwood v. City of Hermiston (2011)
ord · cites it 9×
“Westwood brings a state-law claim for malicious prosecution against the City of Hermiston on the ground that she was “cited and prosecuted for violation of ORS 162.235.” Westwood contends the City “instituted and continued the prosecution for [the] primary purpose .”
City of Eugene v. Kruk (1994)
orctapp · cites it 5×
“907 conflicts with ORS 162.235 and ORS 162.315. The trial court overruled her demurrer.”
City of Dallas v. Sullenger (1992)
orctapp · cites it 8×
“See ORS 162.235 (Obstructing Governmental Administration (except interference with making an arrest)); ORS 162.”
State v. Hansen (2012)
orctapp
“In the commentary to the Proposed Oregon Criminal Code, the Criminal Law Revision Commission noted that “obstruct” is used in the context of its accepted judicial meaning: “‘Obstruction: A term derived from the Latin verb “obstruere”, and variously defined as meaning a barrier,…”
State v. Ching (1991)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“[1] Although the state does not present this argument, it appears to me that defendant's interference violated, or was an attempt to violate, ORS 162.235(1), which provides, in part: "A person commits the crime of obstructing governmental or judicial administration if the person…”
State v. Lucero (2014)
orctapp
“Defendant was subsequently charged with two counts of criminal trespass in the first degree, one count of harassment, and one count of obstructing governmental administration, ORS 162.235. Before trial, the state filed a motion in limine, seeking to prohibit defendant from…”
Rangel v. Denton Plastics, Inc. (1997)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“080(1); and (3) defendants obstructed governmental administration in violation of ORS 162.235. 1 Plaintiffs posit that these violations give rise to viable claims even though the decedent’s injury occurred in the course of his employment.”
State v. Litscher (2017)
orctapp
“225(1)(b); ORS 162.235(1)(d). 1 Defendant focuses on the first of those elements, arguing that the evidence in this case “was insufficient for a reasonable factfinder to find that defendant held his mother in a place where she was not likely to be found.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.235(1) — 5 cases
State v. Gaines (2009)
or
“At the close of the state’s evidence, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that her oral refusal to go to the booking area in the basement to have her picture taken did not constitute a means of “physical * * * interference or obstacle” within the meaning of ORS…”
State v. Ching (1991)
orctapp
“[1] Although the state does not present this argument, it appears to me that defendant's interference violated, or was an attempt to violate, ORS 162.235(1), which provides, in part: "A person commits the crime of obstructing governmental or judicial administration if the person…”
State v. Mattila (1986)
orctapp
“ORS 162.235. 1 He contends that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer to the complaint, in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal, in denying his motion to suppress evidence and in instructing the jury.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.235(1)(d) — 1 case
State v. Litscher (2017)
orctapp
“225(1)(b); ORS 162.235(1)(d). 1 Defendant focuses on the first of those elements, arguing that the evidence in this case “was insufficient for a reasonable factfinder to find that defendant held his mother in a place where she was not likely to be found.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.235(2) — 1 case
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.