163A.100 Risk
assessment methodology; rules.
The State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision shall, in consultation
with community corrections agencies, adopt by rule a sex offender risk
assessment methodology for use in classifying sex offenders. The methodology
may consider exclusively the risk the sex offender presented at the time the
sex offender was released from custody, sentenced or otherwise discharged from
the jurisdiction of a court of this state, or another United States court, for
the crime or act for which the sex offender is required to report. Application
of the risk assessment methodology to a sex offender must result in placing the
sex offender in one of the following levels:
(1) A level one
sex offender who presents, or presented at the time of release, sentencing or
discharge, the lowest risk of reoffending and requires a limited range of
notification.
(2) A level two
sex offender who presents, or presented at the time of release, sentencing or
discharge, a moderate risk of reoffending and requires a moderate range of
notification.
(3) A level three
sex offender who presents, or presented at the time of release, sentencing or
discharge, the highest risk of reoffending and requires the widest range of
notification. [Formerly 181.800; 2025 c.187 §1]
Note: Sections 3 and 4, chapter 187,
Oregon Laws 2025, provide:
Sec. 3. The amendments to ORS 163A.100 by
section 1 of this 2025 Act apply to sex offenders released from custody,
sentenced or otherwise discharged from the jurisdiction of a court of this
state, or another United States court, for the crime or act for which the sex
offender is required to report, before, on or after the effective date of this
2025 Act [May 27, 2025]. [2025 c.187 §3]
Sec. 4. The State Board of Parole and
Post-Prison Supervision may reassess and reclassify, in accordance with the
amendments to ORS 163A.100 by section 1 of this 2025 Act, any sex offender who
was previously assessed and classified on or after July 10, 2024. [2025 c.187 §4]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases (
20 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case:
Baker v. Bd. of Parole, 473 P.3d 83 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
Baker v. Bd. of Parole, 473 P.3d 83 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 6× “ORS 163A.100 required the board to classify petitioner as a Level 1, 2, or 3 sex offender upon his 2017 release from prison.”
Stewart v. Bd. of Parole, 492 P.3d 1283 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “The board classified petitioner using the Static-99R risk assessment tool that the board adopted to implement its statutory obligation to “adopt by rule a sex offender risk assessment methodology for use in classifying sex offenders.”
Lewis-Taylor v. Bd. of Parole, 329 Or. App. 53 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Petitioner seeks judicial review of an August 2021 order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision that, pursuant to ORS 163A.100 and OAR 255-085-0020(2) (Nov 25, 2020), set his sex offender notification level (SONL) at Level 3 (High).”
Thomsen v. Bd. of Parole (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 37× “” As petitioner sees it, pur- suant to ORS 163A.100,1 the board is required to “create a methodology that assesses and classifies sex offenders by present risk of re-offense,” and the board’s rules are invalid because they fail to do that.”
Thomsen v. Bd. of Parole (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 37× “” As petitioner sees it, pur- suant to ORS 163A.100,1 the board is required to “create a methodology that assesses and classifies sex offenders by present risk of re-offense,” and the board’s rules are invalid because they fail to do that.”
Sohappy v. Bd. of Parole (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 9× “Under ORS 163A.100, the board must “adopt by rule a sex offender risk assessment methodology for use in classifying sex offenders,” and application of that rule “must result in placing the sex offender in one of” three notifica- tion levels based on their risk of…”
Haverly v. Bd. of Parole, 330 Or. App. 507 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Petitioner seeks judicial review of a June 23, 2021, order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision that, pursuant to ORS 163A.100 and OAR 255-085-0020 (Nov 25, 2020), set his sex offender notification level (SONL) at Level II (Moderate).”
Allen v. Bd. of Parole (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 6× “In short, as relevant here, ORS 163A.100 requires the board to classify registered sex offenders into three risk levels based on the risk of reoffending that each person “ ‘presents,’ ” which determines the “ ‘range of notifi- cation’ ” that the person “ ‘requires.”
Pugh v. Bd. of Parole, 336 Or. App. 790 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“That is so “because ‘the board’s methodology for initial classification of an individual’s SONL does not measure what the legisla- ture has charged it with measuring under ORS 163A.100 (i.e., present risk), but instead measures “the registrant’s risk as it was at the time of…”
Harless v. Bd. of Parole, 348 Or. App. 289 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 7× “ORS 163A.100 requires the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision to “adopt by rule a sex offender risk assessment methodology for use in classifying sex offend- ers.”
Watson v. Bd. of Parole (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “Petitioner seeks judicial review of a 2020 order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision that, pursuant to ORS 163A.100 and OAR 255-085-0020(1) (Jan 10, 2020), set his sex offender notification level (SONL) at Level 3 (High).”
Culbertson v. Bd. of Parole, 330 Or. App. 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“In that order, the board applied ORS 163A.100 and OAR 255-085-0020 and set petitioner’s sex offender notifi- cation level (SONL) at Level III, the highest level.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163A.100(2) — 2 cases
Thomsen v. Bd. of Parole (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“” As petitioner sees it, pur- suant to ORS 163A.100,1 the board is required to “create a methodology that assesses and classifies sex offenders by present risk of re-offense,” and the board’s rules are invalid because they fail to do that.”
Thomsen v. Bd. of Parole (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“” As petitioner sees it, pur- suant to ORS 163A.100,1 the board is required to “create a methodology that assesses and classifies sex offenders by present risk of re-offense,” and the board’s rules are invalid because they fail to do that.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163A.100(3) — 1 case
Baker v. Bd. of Parole, 473 P.3d 83 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“ORS 163A.100 required the board to classify petitioner as a Level 1, 2, or 3 sex offender upon his 2017 release from prison.”
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.