Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540 (2026)

Obtaining contents of communications

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

165.540 Obtaining contents of communications. (1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (8) of this section, a person may not:

(a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant.

(b) Tamper with the wires, connections, boxes, fuses, circuits, lines or any other equipment or facilities of a telecommunication or radio communication company over which messages are transmitted, with the intent to obtain unlawfully the contents of a telecommunication or radio communication to which the person is not a participant.

(c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.

(d) Obtain the whole or any part of a conversation, telecommunication or radio communication from any person, while knowing or having good reason to believe that the conversation, telecommunication or radio communication was initially obtained in a manner prohibited by this section.

(e) Use or attempt to use, or divulge to others, any conversation, telecommunication or radio communication obtained by any means prohibited by this section.

(2)(a) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of this section do not apply to:

(A) Officers, employees or agents of a telecommunication or radio communication company who perform the acts prohibited by subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of this section for the purpose of construction, maintenance or conducting of their telecommunication or radio communication service, facilities or equipment.

(B) Public officials in charge of and at jails, police premises, sheriffs’ offices, Department of Corrections institutions and other penal or correctional institutions, except as to communications or conversations between an attorney and the client of the attorney.

(b) Officers, employees or agents of a telecommunication or radio communication company who obtain information under paragraph (a) of this subsection may not use or attempt to use, or divulge to others, the information except for the purpose of construction, maintenance, or conducting of their telecommunication or radio communication service, facilities or equipment.

(3) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) of this section do not apply to subscribers or members of their family who perform the acts prohibited in subsection (1) of this section in their homes.

(4) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a) of this section do not apply to the receiving or obtaining of the contents of any radio or television broadcast transmitted for the use of the general public.

(5) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(c) of this section do not apply to:

(a) A person who records a conversation during a felony that endangers human life;

(b) A person who records a conversation in which a law enforcement officer is a participant, if:

(A) The recording is made while the officer is performing official duties;

(B) The recording is made openly and in plain view of the participants in the conversation;

(D) The person is in a place where the person lawfully may be;

(c)(A) A person who, pursuant to ORS 133.400, records an interview conducted by a peace officer in a law enforcement facility; or

(B) A person who, pursuant to ORS 133.402, records a custodial interview, as defined ORS 133.402;

(d) A law enforcement officer who is in uniform and displaying a badge and who is operating:

(A) A vehicle-mounted video camera that records the scene in front of, within or surrounding a police vehicle, unless the officer has reasonable opportunity to inform participants in the conversation that the conversation is being obtained; or

(B) A video camera worn upon the officer’s person that records the officer’s interactions with members of the public while the officer is on duty, unless:

(i) The officer has an opportunity to announce at the beginning of the interaction that the conversation is being obtained; and

(ii) The announcement can be accomplished without causing jeopardy to the officer or any other person and without unreasonably impairing a criminal investigation; or

(e) A law enforcement officer who, acting in the officer’s official capacity, deploys an Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology device that contains a built-in monitoring system capable of recording audio or video, for the duration of that deployment.

(6)(a) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(c) of this section do not apply to persons who intercept or attempt to intercept oral communications that are part of any of the following proceedings, if the person uses an unconcealed recording device or if the communications occur through a video conferencing program:

(A) Public or semipublic meetings such as hearings before governmental or quasi-governmental bodies, trials, press conferences, public speeches, rallies and sporting or other events;

(B) Regularly scheduled classes or similar educational activities in public or private institutions; or

(C) Private meetings or conferences if all others involved knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was being made.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(c) of this section do not apply to a person who, with the intent to capture alleged unlawful activity, obtains or attempts to obtain a conversation occurring through a video conferencing program if the person is a participant in the conversation, or at least one participant in the conversation consents to the recording, and:

(A) The person is a law enforcement officer or is acting in coordination with a law enforcement officer;

(B) The person is acting in coordination with an attorney or an enforcement or regulatory entity; or

(C) The person reasonably believes that the recording may be used as evidence in a judicial or administrative proceeding.

(7) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of this section do not apply to any:

(a) Radio communication that is transmitted by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the amateur or citizens bands; or

(b) Person who intercepts a radio communication that is transmitted by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public provided that the interception is not for purposes of illegal activity.

(8) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(d) and (e) of this section do not apply to a person who did not participate in initially obtaining the conversation, telecommunication or radio communication if the conversation, telecommunication or radio communication is regarding a matter of public concern.

(9) Violation of subsection (1) or (2)(b) of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(10) The exception described in subsection (5)(b) of this section does not authorize the person recording the law enforcement officer to engage in criminal trespass as described in ORS 164.243, 164.245, 164.255, 164.265 or 164.278 or to interfere with a peace officer as described in ORS 162.247.

(11) As used in this section:

(a) “Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology device” means a device that uses a high-voltage, low power charge of electricity to induce involuntary muscle contractions intended to cause temporary incapacitation. “Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology device” includes devices commonly known as tasers.

(b) “Law enforcement officer” has the meaning given that term in ORS 133.726. [1955 c.675 §§2,7; 1959 c.681 §2; 1961 c.460 §1; 1979 c.744 §9; 1983 c.693 §1; 1983 c.740 §35; 1983 c.824 §1; 1987 c.320 §87; 1989 c.983 §14a; 1989 c.1078 §1; 2001 c.104 §54; 2001 c.385 §4; 2003 c.14 §62; 2007 c.879 §1; 2009 c.488 §2; 2015 c.550 §2; 2015 c.553 §1; 2019 c.216 §3; 2021 c.357 §2; 2023 c.234 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 79 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: State v. Evensen, 447 P.3d 23 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Evensen, 447 P.3d 23 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 49× “THE SURREPTITIOUS RECORDING In his first assignment of error on appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of the audio recording that M made, without defendant's knowledge, of her conversation with him.”

State v. Neff, 265 P.3d 62 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 109× “Statutory context includes earlier-enacted statutes, but does not include later-enacted statutes, including later-enacted subsections of ORS 165.540. Checkley v. Boyd, 198 Or.App.”

State v. Fleetwood, 16 P.3d 503 (Or. 2000). · cites it 53× “and ORS 165.540, and that Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, required them to obtain a warrant before obtaining evidence through use of a body wire.”

State v. Bichsel, 790 P.2d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 72× “NOTES [1] In 1989, the legislature amended ORS 165.540 by, inter alia, adding the exception discussed at n.”

State v. Delaurent, 514 P.3d 113 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 28× “Held: The text, context, and legislative history demonstrate that the legislature did not intend to include a district attorney as a “law enforcement officer” for the purpose of the wiretapping statute, ORS 165.”

Proj. Veritas v. Michael Schmidt, 72 F.4th 1043 (9th Cir. 2023). · cites it 22× “” Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540 (1)(c). 1 The statute defines “[c]onversation” as “the transmission between two or more persons of an oral communication which is not a telecommunication or a radio communication, and includes a communication occurring through a video conferencing…”

State v. Jones, 121 P.3d 657 (Or. 2005). · cites it 20× “The parties’ arguments focus on two statutes, ORS 165.540 and ORS 41.910. ORS 165.540 provides, in part: “(1) Except as otherwise provided * * * a person may not: *442 «Hí * * ❖ * “(c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device,…”

State v. Rainey, 431 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 24× “540(3) : "The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) * * * do not apply to subscribers or members of their family who perform the acts prohibited in subsection (1) of this section in their homes.”

State v. Lissy, 747 P.2d 345 (Or. 1987). · cites it 26× “Thus, the legislature created an exception from criminal sanction under chapter 165 to acts which are otherwise illegal under that chapter, but did not enact an exception, other than by warrant, for interceptions under chapter 133. These statutes can be read as unrelated to each…”

State v. Knobel, 777 P.2d 985 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 16× “As discussed above, we interpret ORS 165.540 not to prohibit transcription, whether by pen, pencil or otherwise, because a person who transcribes does not actually intercept the conversation by means of the device.”

State v. Copeland, 522 P.3d 909 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 22× “910(1) (providing that evidence of the contents of any oral communication intercepted “[i]n violation of ORS 165.540 shall not be admissible in any court of this state”).”

State v. Klein, 283 P.3d 350 (Or. 2012). · cites it 4× “Conversations recorded in violation of ORS 165.”

Show all 79 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(1) — 20 cases

State v. Evensen, 447 P.3d 23 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “THE SURREPTITIOUS RECORDING In his first assignment of error on appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of the audio recording that M made, without defendant's knowledge, of her conversation with him.”

State v. Rainey, 431 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “540(3) : "The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) * * * do not apply to subscribers or members of their family who perform the acts prohibited in subsection (1) of this section in their homes.”

State v. Lissy, 747 P.2d 345 (Or. 1987). “Thus, the legislature created an exception from criminal sanction under chapter 165 to acts which are otherwise illegal under that chapter, but did not enact an exception, other than by warrant, for interceptions under chapter 133. These statutes can be read as unrelated to each…”

State v. Knobel, 777 P.2d 985 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “As discussed above, we interpret ORS 165.540 not to prohibit transcription, whether by pen, pencil or otherwise, because a person who transcribes does not actually intercept the conversation by means of the device.”

State v. Bichsel, 790 P.2d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “NOTES [1] In 1989, the legislature amended ORS 165.540 by, inter alia, adding the exception discussed at n.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(1)(a) — 10 cases

State v. Neff, 265 P.3d 62 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Statutory context includes earlier-enacted statutes, but does not include later-enacted statutes, including later-enacted subsections of ORS 165.540. Checkley v. Boyd, 198 Or.App.”

State v. Bichsel, 790 P.2d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “NOTES [1] In 1989, the legislature amended ORS 165.540 by, inter alia, adding the exception discussed at n.”

State v. Dimeo, 747 P.2d 353 (Or. 1987).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(1)(b) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(1)(c) — 16 cases

State v. Bichsel, 790 P.2d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “NOTES [1] In 1989, the legislature amended ORS 165.540 by, inter alia, adding the exception discussed at n.”

State v. Delaurent, 514 P.3d 113 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “Held: The text, context, and legislative history demonstrate that the legislature did not intend to include a district attorney as a “law enforcement officer” for the purpose of the wiretapping statute, ORS 165.”

State v. Jones, 121 P.3d 657 (Or. 2005). “The parties’ arguments focus on two statutes, ORS 165.540 and ORS 41.910. ORS 165.540 provides, in part: “(1) Except as otherwise provided * * * a person may not: *442 «Hí * * ❖ * “(c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device,…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(1)(d) — 3 cases

State v. Carston, 913 P.2d 709 (Or. 1996).

Proj. Veritas v. Schmidt (D. Or. 2021).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(1)(e) — 8 cases

State v. Prew, 161 P.3d 323 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).

State v. Sells, 339 Or. App. 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

State v. Tucker, 753 P.2d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

State v. Sells, 339 Or. App. 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

State v. Carston, 913 P.2d 709 (Or. 1996).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(10)(b) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(2) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(2)(a) — 4 cases

State v. Riddle, 941 P.2d 1079 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 938 F. Supp. 1516 (D. Or. 1996).

State v. Casteel, 857 P.2d 204 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(2)(a)(B) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(3) — 7 cases

Checkley v. Boyd, 107 P.3d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

In re Binns, 910 P.2d 382 (Or. 1996).

Garland & Garland, 475 P.3d 105 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(4) — 5 cases

State v. Bichsel, 790 P.2d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “NOTES [1] In 1989, the legislature amended ORS 165.540 by, inter alia, adding the exception discussed at n.”

State v. Carston, 913 P.2d 709 (Or. 1996).

State v. Carston, 891 P.2d 1366 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

Johnson v. Hawe, 388 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2004).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(5) — 6 cases

State v. Copeland, 522 P.3d 909 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “910(1) (providing that evidence of the contents of any oral communication intercepted “[i]n violation of ORS 165.540 shall not be admissible in any court of this state”).”

State v. Sells, 339 Or. App. 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(5)(a) — 13 cases

State v. Fleetwood, 16 P.3d 503 (Or. 2000). “and ORS 165.540, and that Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, required them to obtain a warrant before obtaining evidence through use of a body wire.”

State v. Rodriguez, 840 P.2d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(5)(a)(A) — 1 case

State v. Casteel, 857 P.2d 204 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(5)(a)(B) — 4 cases

State v. Cleveland, 16 P.3d 514 (Or. 2000).

State v. Bass, 868 P.2d 761 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

State v. Casteel, 857 P.2d 204 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(5)(b) — 4 cases

State v. Sells, 339 Or. App. 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

Proj. Veritas v. Schmidt (D. Or. 2021).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(5)(b)(A) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(5)(b)(B) — 2 cases

State v. Sells, 339 Or. App. 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(5)(d) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(5)(e) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(6) — 3 cases

State v. Bichsel, 790 P.2d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “NOTES [1] In 1989, the legislature amended ORS 165.540 by, inter alia, adding the exception discussed at n.”

Proj. Veritas v. Schmidt (D. Or. 2021).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(6)(a) — 4 cases

State v. Bichsel, 790 P.2d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “NOTES [1] In 1989, the legislature amended ORS 165.540 by, inter alia, adding the exception discussed at n.”

State Ex Rel. North Pac. Lumber Co. v. Unis, 579 P.2d 1291 (Or. 1978).

State v. Armstrong, 547 P.2d 170 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

Proj. Veritas v. Schmidt (D. Or. 2021).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(6)(b) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(6)(c) — 1 case

State v. Bichsel, 790 P.2d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “NOTES [1] In 1989, the legislature amended ORS 165.540 by, inter alia, adding the exception discussed at n.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(7) — 1 case

Hirschey v. Menlow, 747 P.2d 402 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(7)(a) — 1 case

State v. Bichsel, 790 P.2d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “NOTES [1] In 1989, the legislature amended ORS 165.540 by, inter alia, adding the exception discussed at n.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(7)(c) — 1 case

State v. Bichsel, 790 P.2d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “NOTES [1] In 1989, the legislature amended ORS 165.540 by, inter alia, adding the exception discussed at n.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(8) — 3 cases

Checkley v. Boyd, 107 P.3d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

State v. Bichsel, 790 P.2d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “NOTES [1] In 1989, the legislature amended ORS 165.540 by, inter alia, adding the exception discussed at n.”

Proj. Veritas v. Schmidt (D. Or. 2021).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(9) — 2 cases

Checkley v. Boyd, 107 P.3d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

State v. Casteel, 857 P.2d 204 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(c) — 2 cases

State v. Sells, 339 Or. App. 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(l)(a) — 8 cases

State v. Bichsel, 790 P.2d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “NOTES [1] In 1989, the legislature amended ORS 165.540 by, inter alia, adding the exception discussed at n.”

Checkley v. Boyd, 107 P.3d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(l)(b) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(l)(c) — 14 cases

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012).

State v. Miskell, 277 P.3d 522 (Or. 2012).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(l)(d) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(l)(e) — 2 cases

Checkley v. Boyd, 107 P.3d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

City of Lake Oswego v. Mylander, 733 P.2d 455 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

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.