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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.545 (2026)

Prohibitions not applicable to fire or police activities

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

      165.545 Prohibitions not applicable to fire or police activities. Nothing in ORS 165.535, 165.540 and this section, shall be construed as preventing fire or police governmental entities from recording, replaying or broadcasting telecommunication or radio communication that directly concern police or fire operation at the telephone or radio operation center or centers of such governmental entity. [1959 c.681 §6; 1981 c.806 §2; 1983 c.740 §36]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1979–1981 · leading case: State v. Ostrom, 600 P.2d 910 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ostrom, 600 P.2d 910 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “Therefore, we need not consider whether the trial court erred in ruling that ORS 165.545(2) 2 prohibited the introduction of this exhibit into evidence.”
State v. Maffia, 600 P.2d 446 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “” This subsection of ORS 165.545 must be read together with the preceding subsection, ORS 165.”
State v. Miller, 634 P.2d 1361 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “Error is not assigned to the admission of the exhibits or the testimony about the blasting caps found in defendant’s apartment, so the wording of the opening statement, whatever it actually was, was not prejudicial. The trial court admitted police bureau tape recordings of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.545(1) — 1 case
State v. Maffia, 600 P.2d 446 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “” This subsection of ORS 165.545 must be read together with the preceding subsection, ORS 165.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.545(2) — 3 cases
State v. Ostrom, 600 P.2d 910 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “Therefore, we need not consider whether the trial court erred in ruling that ORS 165.545(2) 2 prohibited the introduction of this exhibit into evidence.”
State v. Miller, 634 P.2d 1361 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “Error is not assigned to the admission of the exhibits or the testimony about the blasting caps found in defendant’s apartment, so the wording of the opening statement, whatever it actually was, was not prejudicial. The trial court admitted police bureau tape recordings of the…”
State v. Maffia, 600 P.2d 446 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “” This subsection of ORS 165.545 must be read together with the preceding subsection, ORS 165.”
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.