164.887
Interference with agricultural operations. (1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this
section, a person commits the offense of interference with agricultural
operations if the person, while on the property of another person who is
engaged in agricultural operations, intentionally or knowingly obstructs,
impairs or hinders or attempts to obstruct, impair or hinder agricultural
operations.
(2) Interference
with agricultural operations is a Class A misdemeanor.
(3) The
provisions of subsection (1) of this section do not apply to:
(a) A person who
is involved in a labor dispute as defined in ORS 662.010 with the other person;
or
(b) A public
employee who is performing official duties.
(4) As used in
this section:
(a)(A) “Agricultural
operations” means the conduct of logging and forest management, mining, farming
or ranching of livestock animals or domestic farm animals;
(B) “Domestic
farm animal” means an animal used to control or protect livestock animals or
used in other related agricultural activities; and
(C) “Livestock
animals” has the meaning given that term in ORS 164.055.
(b) “Domestic
farm animal” and “livestock animals” do not include stray animals. [1999 c.694 §1]
Note: 164.887 was enacted into law by
the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 164
or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised
Statutes for further explanation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2023 · leading case:
State v. Borowski, 220 P.3d 100 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Borowski, 220 P.3d 100 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 24× “ORS 164.887 (set out below). At trial, each defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the statute on its face violated the free speech, free assembly, and equality guarantees of the Oregon and United States constitutions.”
Proj. Veritas v. Michael Schmidt, 72 F.4th 1043 (9th Cir. 2023).
“at 109 ; Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.887 (1999). Because the Oregon legislature enacted section 165.”
State v. Bennett, 402 P.3d 732 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “” Finally, the state also cites ORS 164.887(4)(a)(A), which defines “agricultural operations,” for purposes of the crime of interference with agricultural operations, to mean “the conduct of * * * farming or ranching of livestock animals or domestic farm animals.”
State v. Roselle, 221 P.3d 762 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “*213 PER CURIAM Defendant was charged with “interference with agricultural operations” under ORS 164.887. He moved to dismiss the charge on the grounds that the statute on its face violates the free speech, free assembly, and equality guarantees of the Oregon and United States…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.887(1) — 1 case
State v. Borowski, 220 P.3d 100 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“ORS 164.887 (set out below). At trial, each defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the statute on its face violated the free speech, free assembly, and equality guarantees of the Oregon and United States constitutions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.887(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Borowski, 220 P.3d 100 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“ORS 164.887 (set out below). At trial, each defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the statute on its face violated the free speech, free assembly, and equality guarantees of the Oregon and United States constitutions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.887(3)(b) — 1 case
State v. Borowski, 220 P.3d 100 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“ORS 164.887 (set out below). At trial, each defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the statute on its face violated the free speech, free assembly, and equality guarantees of the Oregon and United States constitutions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.887(4)(a)(A) — 2 cases
State v. Borowski, 220 P.3d 100 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“ORS 164.887 (set out below). At trial, each defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the statute on its face violated the free speech, free assembly, and equality guarantees of the Oregon and United States constitutions.”
State v. Bennett, 402 P.3d 732 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“” Finally, the state also cites ORS 164.887(4)(a)(A), which defines “agricultural operations,” for purposes of the crime of interference with agricultural operations, to mean “the conduct of * * * farming or ranching of livestock animals or domestic farm animals.”
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.