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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.247 (2026)

Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer

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

      162.247 Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer. (1) A person commits the crime of interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer if the person, knowing that another person is a peace officer or a parole and probation officer as defined in ORS 181A.355, intentionally or knowingly acts in a manner that prevents, or attempts to prevent, the peace officer or parole and probation officer from performing the lawful duties of the officer with regard to another person or a criminal investigation.

      (2) Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer is a Class A misdemeanor.

      (3) This section does not apply:

      (a) In situations in which the person is engaging in passive resistance.

      (b) To the act of informing another person of the other person’s civil or constitutional rights.

      (4) A person may not be arrested or charged under this section if the person is arrested or charged for another offense based on the same conduct. [1997 c.719 §1; 1999 c.1040 §7; 2005 c.668 §1; 2021 c.254 §1; 2025 c.246 §3]

 

      Note: 162.247 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 162 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 130 cases (41 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: State v. McNally, 392 P.3d 721 (Or. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. McNally, 392 P.3d 721 (Or. 2017). · cites it 134× “” Alternatively, defendant argues that, 2 The Court of Appeals in Patnesky also stated that, to be “engaging in * * * passive resistance” for purposes of ORS 162.247 a person must take “purposeful, deliberate, planned, or coordinated action that represents something more than…”
State v. Kreis, 451 P.3d 954 (Or. 2019). · cites it 35× “8 We agree with the state’s opening proposition that peace officers have broad authority to investigate crime and 7 For that reason, we differ with the dissent in the importance of Court of Appeals cases decided prior to the amendment of ORS 162.247 in 1997 and the related…”
State v. Illig-Renn, 142 P.3d 62 (Or. 2006). · cites it 34× “This case concerns the constitutionality of ORS 162.247(l)(b), a statute that makes it a crime to “refuse[ ] to obey a lawful order by [a] peace officer.”
State v. Garcia, 399 P.3d 444 (Or. 2017). · cites it 36× “Defendant was charged with two counts of interfering with a peace officer under ORS 162.247 and one count of resisting arrest under ORS 162.”
State v. Bledsoe, 487 P.3d 862 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 25× “Defendant was charged with interfering with a peace officer, ORS 162.247, for refusing to obey the officer’s order.”
DeNucci v. Henningsen, 273 P.3d 148 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 14× “2 The district attorney later amended the charging instrument to include a charge of violating ORS 162.247, interfering with a peace officer.”
State v. Lam, 29 P.3d 1206 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 16× “Defendant was charged with interfering with a peace officer, ORS 162.247, 1 and contempt by way of aiding and abetting, ORS 33.”
State v. Illig-Renn, 73 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 22× “I concur only to point out that, at the present time, a facial vagueness challenge under the Oregon Constitution, based on the danger of ad hoc administration and after-the-fact lawmaking, cannot be defeated merely by imagining a case in which those evils do not occur.”
State v. Gaines, 206 P.3d 1042 (Or. 2009). · cites it 2× “ORS 162.247(3)(b); ORS 162.315(2)(c). Relying on those express exceptions, the state urges that the legislature’s failure to include a similar express exclusion in ORS 162.”
State v. Ashbaugh, 244 P.3d 360 (Or. 2010). · cites it 4× “ORS 162.247, ORS 162.385, and ORS 811.535 require citizens to obey police orders and provide police officers with accurate information.”
State v. Garcia, 377 P.3d 596 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 13× “The IPO statute, ORS 162.247, 1 provides that it “does not apply in situations in which the person is engaging in * * * activity that would constitute resisting arrest under ORS 162.”
State v. Backstrand, 313 P.3d 1084 (Or. 2013). · cites it 4× “See ORS 162.247(1)(a) (crime to prevent officer from performing lawful duties); ORS 162.”
Show all 130 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.247(1) — 12 cases
State v. McNally, 392 P.3d 721 (Or. 2017). “” Alternatively, defendant argues that, 2 The Court of Appeals in Patnesky also stated that, to be “engaging in * * * passive resistance” for purposes of ORS 162.247 a person must take “purposeful, deliberate, planned, or coordinated action that represents something more than…”
State v. Muldrew, 210 P.3d 936 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Andre, 38 P.3d 949 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Enyeart, 340 P.3d 57 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Seidel, 432 P.3d 304 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.247(1)(a) — 7 cases
State v. Backstrand, 313 P.3d 1084 (Or. 2013). “See ORS 162.247(1)(a) (crime to prevent officer from performing lawful duties); ORS 162.”
State v. Phillips, 491 P.3d 99 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Scheirman, 433 P.3d 761 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Garcia, 399 P.3d 444 (Or. 2017). “Defendant was charged with two counts of interfering with a peace officer under ORS 162.247 and one count of resisting arrest under ORS 162.”
State v. Garcia (Or. 2017).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.247(1)(b) — 28 cases
State v. Kreis, 451 P.3d 954 (Or. 2019). “8 We agree with the state’s opening proposition that peace officers have broad authority to investigate crime and 7 For that reason, we differ with the dissent in the importance of Court of Appeals cases decided prior to the amendment of ORS 162.247 in 1997 and the related…”
State v. McNally, 392 P.3d 721 (Or. 2017). “” Alternatively, defendant argues that, 2 The Court of Appeals in Patnesky also stated that, to be “engaging in * * * passive resistance” for purposes of ORS 162.247 a person must take “purposeful, deliberate, planned, or coordinated action that represents something more than…”
State v. Illig-Renn, 73 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “I concur only to point out that, at the present time, a facial vagueness challenge under the Oregon Constitution, based on the danger of ad hoc administration and after-the-fact lawmaking, cannot be defeated merely by imagining a case in which those evils do not occur.”
State v. Ashbaugh, 244 P.3d 360 (Or. 2010). “ORS 162.247, ORS 162.385, and ORS 811.535 require citizens to obey police orders and provide police officers with accurate information.”
State v. Hernandez, 449 P.3d 878 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.247(2) — 2 cases
State v. Shutoff, 330 P.3d 1237 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
Sitbon v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.247(3) — 11 cases
State v. McNally, 392 P.3d 721 (Or. 2017). “” Alternatively, defendant argues that, 2 The Court of Appeals in Patnesky also stated that, to be “engaging in * * * passive resistance” for purposes of ORS 162.247 a person must take “purposeful, deliberate, planned, or coordinated action that represents something more than…”
State v. Garcia, 399 P.3d 444 (Or. 2017). “Defendant was charged with two counts of interfering with a peace officer under ORS 162.247 and one count of resisting arrest under ORS 162.”
State v. Garcia, 377 P.3d 596 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “The IPO statute, ORS 162.247, 1 provides that it “does not apply in situations in which the person is engaging in * * * activity that would constitute resisting arrest under ORS 162.”
State v. McNally, 353 P.3d 1255 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Wills, 317 P.3d 407 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.247(3)(a) — 6 cases
State v. Garcia, 399 P.3d 444 (Or. 2017). “Defendant was charged with two counts of interfering with a peace officer under ORS 162.247 and one count of resisting arrest under ORS 162.”
State v. Garcia, 377 P.3d 596 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “The IPO statute, ORS 162.247, 1 provides that it “does not apply in situations in which the person is engaging in * * * activity that would constitute resisting arrest under ORS 162.”
State v. Garcia (Or. 2017).
State v. Garcia (Or. 2017).
State v. Kountz, 379 P.3d 664 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.247(3)(b) — 16 cases
State v. McNally, 392 P.3d 721 (Or. 2017). “” Alternatively, defendant argues that, 2 The Court of Appeals in Patnesky also stated that, to be “engaging in * * * passive resistance” for purposes of ORS 162.247 a person must take “purposeful, deliberate, planned, or coordinated action that represents something more than…”
State v. Gaines, 206 P.3d 1042 (Or. 2009). “ORS 162.247(3)(b); ORS 162.315(2)(c). Relying on those express exceptions, the state urges that the legislature’s failure to include a similar express exclusion in ORS 162.”
State v. Bledsoe, 487 P.3d 862 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Defendant was charged with interfering with a peace officer, ORS 162.247, for refusing to obey the officer’s order.”
State v. Rice, 346 P.3d 631 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Garcia, 399 P.3d 444 (Or. 2017). “Defendant was charged with two counts of interfering with a peace officer under ORS 162.247 and one count of resisting arrest under ORS 162.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.247(a) — 2 cases
State v. Suppah, 369 P.3d 1108 (Or. 2016).
State v. Suppah (Or. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.247(b) — 1 case
State v. McNally, 392 P.3d 721 (Or. 2017). “” Alternatively, defendant argues that, 2 The Court of Appeals in Patnesky also stated that, to be “engaging in * * * passive resistance” for purposes of ORS 162.247 a person must take “purposeful, deliberate, planned, or coordinated action that represents something more than…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.247(l)(a) — 6 cases
State v. Backstrand, 313 P.3d 1084 (Or. 2013). “See ORS 162.247(1)(a) (crime to prevent officer from performing lawful duties); ORS 162.”
State v. Bistrika, 324 P.3d 584 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Ausmus, 85 P.3d 864 (Or. 2003).
State v. Garcia, 377 P.3d 596 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “The IPO statute, ORS 162.247, 1 provides that it “does not apply in situations in which the person is engaging in * * * activity that would constitute resisting arrest under ORS 162.”
State v. Enyeart, 340 P.3d 57 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.247(l)(b) — 22 cases
State v. Illig-Renn, 142 P.3d 62 (Or. 2006). “This case concerns the constitutionality of ORS 162.247(l)(b), a statute that makes it a crime to “refuse[ ] to obey a lawful order by [a] peace officer.”
State v. McNally, 392 P.3d 721 (Or. 2017). “” Alternatively, defendant argues that, 2 The Court of Appeals in Patnesky also stated that, to be “engaging in * * * passive resistance” for purposes of ORS 162.247 a person must take “purposeful, deliberate, planned, or coordinated action that represents something more than…”
State v. Gaines, 206 P.3d 1042 (Or. 2009). “ORS 162.247(3)(b); ORS 162.315(2)(c). Relying on those express exceptions, the state urges that the legislature’s failure to include a similar express exclusion in ORS 162.”
State v. Illig-Renn, 73 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “I concur only to point out that, at the present time, a facial vagueness challenge under the Oregon Constitution, based on the danger of ad hoc administration and after-the-fact lawmaking, cannot be defeated merely by imagining a case in which those evils do not occur.”
State v. Enyeart, 340 P.3d 57 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
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.