164.377
Computer crime.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) To “access”
means to instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from or
otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, computer system or computer
network.
(b) “Computer”
means, but is not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical electrochemical
or other high-speed data processing device that performs logical, arithmetic or
memory functions by the manipulations of electronic, magnetic or optical
signals or impulses, and includes the components of a computer and all input,
output, processing, storage, software or communication facilities that are
connected or related to such a device in a system or network.
(c) “Computer
network” means, but is not limited to, the interconnection of communication
lines, including microwave or other means of electronic communication, with a
computer through remote terminals or a complex consisting of two or more
interconnected computers.
(d) “Computer
program” means, but is not limited to, a series of instructions or statements,
in a form acceptable to a computer, which permits the functioning of a computer
system in a manner designed to provide appropriate products from or usage of
such computer system.
(e) “Computer
software” means, but is not limited to, computer programs, procedures and
associated documentation concerned with the operation of a computer system.
(f) “Computer
system” means, but is not limited to, a set of related, connected or
unconnected, computer equipment, devices and software. “Computer system” also
includes any computer, device or software owned or operated by the Oregon State
Lottery or rented, owned or operated by another person or entity under contract
to or at the direction of the Oregon State Lottery.
(g) “Data” means
a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, computer software,
computer programs or instructions. “Data” may be in any form, in storage media,
or as stored in the memory of the computer, or in transit, or presented on a
display device. “Data” includes, but is not limited to, computer or human
readable forms of numbers, text, stored voice, graphics and images.
(h) “Intimate
image” means a photograph, film, video, recording, digital picture or other
visual reproduction of a person whose intimate parts are visible or who is
engaged in sexual conduct.
(i) “Intimate
parts” means uncovered human genitals, pubic areas or female nipples.
(j) “Property”
includes, but is not limited to, financial instruments, information, including
electronically produced data, and computer software and programs in either
computer or human readable form, intellectual property and any other tangible
or intangible item of value.
(k) “Proprietary
information” includes any scientific, technical or commercial information
including any design, process, procedure, list of customers, list of suppliers,
customers’ records or business code or improvement thereof that is known only
to limited individuals within an organization and is used in a business that
the organization conducts. The information must have actual or potential
commercial value and give the user of the information an opportunity to obtain
a business advantage over competitors who do not know or use the information.
(L) “Services”
includes, but is not limited to, computer time, data processing and storage
functions.
(m) “Sexual
conduct” means sexual intercourse or oral or anal sexual intercourse, as those
terms are defined in ORS 163.305, or masturbation.
(2) Any person
commits computer crime who knowingly accesses, attempts to access or uses, or
attempts to use, any computer, computer system, computer network or any part
thereof for the purpose of:
(a) Devising or
executing any scheme or artifice to defraud;
(b) Obtaining
money, property or services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations or promises; or
(c) Committing
theft, including, but not limited to, theft of proprietary information or theft
of an intimate image.
(3) Any person
who knowingly and without authorization alters, damages or destroys any
computer, computer system, computer network, or any computer software, program,
documentation or data contained in such computer, computer system or computer
network, commits computer crime.
(4) Any person
who knowingly and without authorization uses, accesses or attempts to access
any computer, computer system, computer network, or any computer software,
program, documentation or data contained in such computer, computer system or
computer network, commits computer crime.
(5)(a) A
violation of the provisions of subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall be a
Class C felony. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a
violation of the provisions of subsection (4) of this section shall be a Class
A misdemeanor.
(b) Any violation
of this section relating to a computer, computer network, computer program,
computer software, computer system or data owned or operated by the Oregon
State Lottery or rented, owned or operated by another person or entity under
contract to or at the direction of the Oregon State Lottery Commission shall be
a Class C felony. [1985 c.537 §8; 1989 c.737 §1; 1991 c.962 §17; 2001 c.870 §18;
2015 c.350 §1; 2017 c.318 §13]
164.380 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
GRAFFITI-RELATED
OFFENSES
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
37
cases (
19 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case:
State v. Nascimento, 379 P.3d 484 (Or. 2016).
State v. Nascimento, 379 P.3d 484 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 35× “She concedes, however, that her use may have violated her employer’s policies or other provisions of ORS 164.377. For the reasons explained below, we agree that defendant’s conduct did not violate subsection (4) of the statute, and, accordingly, that the trial court erred in…”
State v. Schwartz, 21 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 32× “ORS 164.377. We reverse the order of restitution, but otherwise we affirm.”
State v. Azar, 509 P.3d 668 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 42× “055, and computer crime, ORS 164.377, as well as laundering a monetary instrument, ORS 164.”
Young v. Hill, 218 P.3d 125 (Or. 2009).
· cites it 3× “In 2005, petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of Computer Crime, a Class C felony, under ORS 164.377. 1 In *168 charging petitioner with that crime, the indictment had alleged: “The said defendant on or about the 10th day of February, 2004, in the County of Clackamas, State of…”
State v. Bellar, 217 P.3d 1094 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 6× “ORS 164.377. That information was not generated or maintained by Wells or any third party.”
State v. Perkins, 529 P.3d 999 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“057 (Count 2), computer crime, ORS 164.377 (Count 3), unlawful use of a vehicle, ORS 164.”
State v. Craig, 337 Or. App. 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “In case number 22CR60060, defendant was convicted of computer crime, ORS 164.377(2). Cite as 337 Or App 38 (2024) 41 Defendant appeals.”
State v. Tecle, 396 P.3d 955 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 23× “As the parties’ textual arguments demonstrate, the court could reach different results depending on how broadly or narrowly the term “use” is construed.”
State v. Mallory, 162 P.3d 297 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “057; one count of computer crime, ORS 164.377; and one count of first-degree forgery, ORS 165.”
State v. Azar (Or. 2024).
· cites it 85× “He reasoned that the legis- lative history of ORS 164.377 indicated that the statute “was intended to address the type of criminal activity we most associate with hacking or other nefarious access to networks or computers, not simply the use of electronics to commit crimes.”
State v. Azar (Or. 2024).
· cites it 84× “He reasoned that the legislative history of ORS 164.377 indicated that the stat- ute “was intended to address the type of criminal activity we most associate with hacking or other nefarious access to networks or computers, not simply the use of electron- ics to commit crimes.”
State v. Spears, 196 P.3d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“There, the defendant was charged with computer crime, ORS 164.377(2)(c), which requires proof that the defendant’s access to or use of the computer was “for the purpose of * * * \c\ommitting theft * * (Emphasis added.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.377(1) — 1 case
State v. Nascimento, 379 P.3d 484 (Or. 2016).
“She concedes, however, that her use may have violated her employer’s policies or other provisions of ORS 164.377. For the reasons explained below, we agree that defendant’s conduct did not violate subsection (4) of the statute, and, accordingly, that the trial court erred in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.377(1)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Tecle, 396 P.3d 955 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“As the parties’ textual arguments demonstrate, the court could reach different results depending on how broadly or narrowly the term “use” is construed.”
State v. Azar (Or. 2024).
“He reasoned that the legislative history of ORS 164.377 indicated that the stat- ute “was intended to address the type of criminal activity we most associate with hacking or other nefarious access to networks or computers, not simply the use of electron- ics to commit crimes.”
State v. Azar (Or. 2024).
“He reasoned that the legis- lative history of ORS 164.377 indicated that the statute “was intended to address the type of criminal activity we most associate with hacking or other nefarious access to networks or computers, not simply the use of electronics to commit crimes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.377(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Azar (Or. 2024).
“He reasoned that the legis- lative history of ORS 164.377 indicated that the statute “was intended to address the type of criminal activity we most associate with hacking or other nefarious access to networks or computers, not simply the use of electronics to commit crimes.”
State v. Azar (Or. 2024).
“He reasoned that the legislative history of ORS 164.377 indicated that the stat- ute “was intended to address the type of criminal activity we most associate with hacking or other nefarious access to networks or computers, not simply the use of electron- ics to commit crimes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.377(1)(h) — 1 case
State v. Azar, 509 P.3d 668 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“055, and computer crime, ORS 164.377, as well as laundering a monetary instrument, ORS 164.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.377(1)(j) — 1 case
State v. Azar (Or. 2024).
“He reasoned that the legis- lative history of ORS 164.377 indicated that the statute “was intended to address the type of criminal activity we most associate with hacking or other nefarious access to networks or computers, not simply the use of electronics to commit crimes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.377(1)(k) — 1 case
State v. Azar, 509 P.3d 668 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“055, and computer crime, ORS 164.377, as well as laundering a monetary instrument, ORS 164.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.377(2) — 15 cases
State v. Azar, 509 P.3d 668 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“055, and computer crime, ORS 164.377, as well as laundering a monetary instrument, ORS 164.”
State v. Nascimento, 379 P.3d 484 (Or. 2016).
“She concedes, however, that her use may have violated her employer’s policies or other provisions of ORS 164.377. For the reasons explained below, we agree that defendant’s conduct did not violate subsection (4) of the statute, and, accordingly, that the trial court erred in…”
State v. Schwartz, 21 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“ORS 164.377. We reverse the order of restitution, but otherwise we affirm.”
State v. Craig, 337 Or. App. 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“In case number 22CR60060, defendant was convicted of computer crime, ORS 164.377(2). Cite as 337 Or App 38 (2024) 41 Defendant appeals.”
State v. Tecle, 396 P.3d 955 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“As the parties’ textual arguments demonstrate, the court could reach different results depending on how broadly or narrowly the term “use” is construed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.377(2)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Azar, 509 P.3d 668 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“055, and computer crime, ORS 164.377, as well as laundering a monetary instrument, ORS 164.”
State v. Nascimento, 379 P.3d 484 (Or. 2016).
“She concedes, however, that her use may have violated her employer’s policies or other provisions of ORS 164.377. For the reasons explained below, we agree that defendant’s conduct did not violate subsection (4) of the statute, and, accordingly, that the trial court erred in…”
Young v. Hill, 218 P.3d 125 (Or. 2009).
“In 2005, petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of Computer Crime, a Class C felony, under ORS 164.377. 1 In *168 charging petitioner with that crime, the indictment had alleged: “The said defendant on or about the 10th day of February, 2004, in the County of Clackamas, State of…”
State v. Azar (Or. 2024).
“He reasoned that the legislative history of ORS 164.377 indicated that the stat- ute “was intended to address the type of criminal activity we most associate with hacking or other nefarious access to networks or computers, not simply the use of electron- ics to commit crimes.”
State v. Azar (Or. 2024).
“He reasoned that the legis- lative history of ORS 164.377 indicated that the statute “was intended to address the type of criminal activity we most associate with hacking or other nefarious access to networks or computers, not simply the use of electronics to commit crimes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.377(2)(c) — 13 cases
State v. Schwartz, 21 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“ORS 164.377. We reverse the order of restitution, but otherwise we affirm.”
State v. Azar, 509 P.3d 668 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“055, and computer crime, ORS 164.377, as well as laundering a monetary instrument, ORS 164.”
State v. Nascimento, 379 P.3d 484 (Or. 2016).
“She concedes, however, that her use may have violated her employer’s policies or other provisions of ORS 164.377. For the reasons explained below, we agree that defendant’s conduct did not violate subsection (4) of the statute, and, accordingly, that the trial court erred in…”
State v. Spears, 196 P.3d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“There, the defendant was charged with computer crime, ORS 164.377(2)(c), which requires proof that the defendant’s access to or use of the computer was “for the purpose of * * * \c\ommitting theft * * (Emphasis added.”
State v. Azar (Or. 2024).
“He reasoned that the legis- lative history of ORS 164.377 indicated that the statute “was intended to address the type of criminal activity we most associate with hacking or other nefarious access to networks or computers, not simply the use of electronics to commit crimes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.377(3) — 7 cases
State v. Schwartz, 21 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“ORS 164.377. We reverse the order of restitution, but otherwise we affirm.”
State v. Tecle, 396 P.3d 955 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“As the parties’ textual arguments demonstrate, the court could reach different results depending on how broadly or narrowly the term “use” is construed.”
State v. Azar (Or. 2024).
“He reasoned that the legislative history of ORS 164.377 indicated that the stat- ute “was intended to address the type of criminal activity we most associate with hacking or other nefarious access to networks or computers, not simply the use of electron- ics to commit crimes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.377(4) — 6 cases
State v. Nascimento, 379 P.3d 484 (Or. 2016).
“She concedes, however, that her use may have violated her employer’s policies or other provisions of ORS 164.377. For the reasons explained below, we agree that defendant’s conduct did not violate subsection (4) of the statute, and, accordingly, that the trial court erred in…”
State v. Bellar, 217 P.3d 1094 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“ORS 164.377. That information was not generated or maintained by Wells or any third party.”
State v. Tecle, 396 P.3d 955 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“As the parties’ textual arguments demonstrate, the court could reach different results depending on how broadly or narrowly the term “use” is construed.”
State v. Azar (Or. 2024).
“He reasoned that the legislative history of ORS 164.377 indicated that the stat- ute “was intended to address the type of criminal activity we most associate with hacking or other nefarious access to networks or computers, not simply the use of electron- ics to commit crimes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.377(5)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Nascimento, 379 P.3d 484 (Or. 2016).
“She concedes, however, that her use may have violated her employer’s policies or other provisions of ORS 164.377. For the reasons explained below, we agree that defendant’s conduct did not violate subsection (4) of the statute, and, accordingly, that the trial court erred in…”
State v. Craig, 337 Or. App. 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“In case number 22CR60060, defendant was convicted of computer crime, ORS 164.377(2). Cite as 337 Or App 38 (2024) 41 Defendant appeals.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.377(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Nascimento, 379 P.3d 484 (Or. 2016).
“She concedes, however, that her use may have violated her employer’s policies or other provisions of ORS 164.377. For the reasons explained below, we agree that defendant’s conduct did not violate subsection (4) of the statute, and, accordingly, that the trial court erred in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.377(l)(i) — 1 case
State v. Schwartz, 21 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“ORS 164.377. We reverse the order of restitution, but otherwise we affirm.”
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.