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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.467 (2026)

Private indecency

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

      163.467 Private indecency. (1) A person commits the crime of private indecency if the person exposes the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person and:

      (a) The person is in a place where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy;

      (b) The person is in view of the other person;

      (c) The exposure reasonably would be expected to alarm or annoy the other person; and

      (d) The person knows that the other person did not consent to the exposure.

      (2) Private indecency is a Class A misdemeanor.

      (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a person who commits the act described in subsection (1) of this section if the person cohabits with and is involved in a sexually intimate relationship with the other person.

      (4) For purposes of this section, “place where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy” includes, but is not limited to, residences, yards of residences, working areas and offices. [1999 c.869 §2]

 

      163.470 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: State v. Miller, 256 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Miller, 256 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 10× “Defendant appeals from his conviction for private indecency, ORS 163.467. Defendant exposed himself to the victim, who was in custody and awaiting trial as she sat in the hallway of the Washington County “Old Jail” facility.”
State v. Davidson, 380 P.3d 963 (Or. 2016). “ORS 163.467. Unlawful dissemination of an intimate image, which can be either a Class A misdemeanor or a felony, and involves disclosure of intimate images on the internet for the purpose of harassing, humiliating, or injuring another, is not a “sex crime” for purposes of ORS…”
State v. Wimmer, 529 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 17× “In his first assignment of error, he challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. In his second assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it required defendant to report as a sex offender.”
State v. Cleaver, 532 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 15× “467, and assigns error to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquit- tal, contending that there was insufficient evidence that he exposed himself in a “place where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Held: The legislature defined a “place where another…”
State v. Simons, 167 P.3d 476 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “415, and one count of private indecency, ORS 163.467, based on incidents involving two of his coworkers.”
State v. Zamora, 530 P.3d 914 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “670, three counts of private indecency, ORS 163.467, and one count of stran- gulation, ORS 163.”
State v. Smith, 372 P.3d 549 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “415) and private indecency (ORS 163.467) when committed by a sexual recidivist, similarly are not predicates for imposition of an ORS 137.”
State v. Reed (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “355; one count of private indecency, ORS 163.467; and one count of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, ORS 163.”
State v. Chavez, 272 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “405, and two counts of private indecency, ORS 163.467. On appeal, defendant raises several assignments of error.”
State v. Serafin, 249 P.3d 160 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “415, private indecency, ORS 163.467, and harassment, ORS 166.065.”
State v. Cleaver (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 14× “Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of private indecency, ORS 163.467, and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.”
State v. Peloquin, 344 Or. App. 428 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “575, and private indecency, ORS 163.467. In his sole assignment of error, he challenges the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.467(1) — 1 case
State v. Wimmer, 529 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “In his first assignment of error, he challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. In his second assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it required defendant to report as a sex offender.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.467(1)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Cleaver, 532 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “467, and assigns error to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquit- tal, contending that there was insufficient evidence that he exposed himself in a “place where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Held: The legislature defined a “place where another…”
State v. Wimmer, 529 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “In his first assignment of error, he challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. In his second assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it required defendant to report as a sex offender.”
State v. Cleaver (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of private indecency, ORS 163.467, and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.467(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. Wimmer, 529 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “In his first assignment of error, he challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. In his second assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it required defendant to report as a sex offender.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.467(4) — 4 cases
State v. Miller, 256 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Defendant appeals from his conviction for private indecency, ORS 163.467. Defendant exposed himself to the victim, who was in custody and awaiting trial as she sat in the hallway of the Washington County “Old Jail” facility.”
State v. Wimmer, 529 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “In his first assignment of error, he challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. In his second assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it required defendant to report as a sex offender.”
State v. Cleaver, 532 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “467, and assigns error to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquit- tal, contending that there was insufficient evidence that he exposed himself in a “place where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Held: The legislature defined a “place where another…”
State v. Cleaver (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of private indecency, ORS 163.467, and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.467(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Miller, 256 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Defendant appeals from his conviction for private indecency, ORS 163.467. Defendant exposed himself to the victim, who was in custody and awaiting trial as she sat in the hallway of the Washington County “Old Jail” facility.”
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.