165.657
Definitions for ORS 165.659 to 165.669. As used in ORS 165.659 to 165.669, unless the context
requires otherwise:
(1) “Electronic
communication” has the meaning given in ORS 133.721.
(2) “Pen register”
means a device which records or decodes electronic or other impulses which
identify the numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to
which such device is attached, but does not include any device used by a
provider or customer of a provider of electronic or wire communication service
for billing or recording as an incident to billing for communications services
provided by such provider or any device used by a provider or customer of a
wire communication service for cost accounting or other like purposes in the
ordinary course of its business.
(3) “Police
officer” has the meaning given in ORS 133.525.
(4) “Trap and
trace device” means a device which captures the incoming electronic or other
impulses which identify the originating number of an instrument or device from
which a wire or electronic communication was transmitted.
(5) “Wire
communication” has the meaning given in ORS 133.721. [1989 c.983 §15]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 2003–2008 · leading case:
State v. Delp, 178 P.3d 259 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Delp, 178 P.3d 259 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 5× “There, the defendant argued that, although the court in Johnson could not identify a source of law establishing a privacy interest in cell phone records, the court had failed to consider ORS 165.657 to 165.673, a “series of statutes that set out permissible and impermissible…”
State v. Magana, 159 P.3d 1163 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 6× “In defendant’s view, although the court in that case could not identify a source of law establishing a privacy interest in cell phone records, the court failed to consider ORS 165.657 to 165.673, a series of statutes that set out permissible and impermissible uses of “pen…”
State v. Mituniewicz, 62 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 165.657(2) (defining “pen register” as a device that records numbers dialed from the telephone line to which it is attached).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.657(2) — 2 cases
State v. Delp, 178 P.3d 259 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“There, the defendant argued that, although the court in Johnson could not identify a source of law establishing a privacy interest in cell phone records, the court had failed to consider ORS 165.657 to 165.673, a “series of statutes that set out permissible and impermissible…”
State v. Mituniewicz, 62 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“See ORS 165.657(2) (defining “pen register” as a device that records numbers dialed from the telephone line to which it is attached).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.657(4) — 2 cases
State v. Delp, 178 P.3d 259 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“There, the defendant argued that, although the court in Johnson could not identify a source of law establishing a privacy interest in cell phone records, the court had failed to consider ORS 165.657 to 165.673, a “series of statutes that set out permissible and impermissible…”
State v. Mituniewicz, 62 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“See ORS 165.657(2) (defining “pen register” as a device that records numbers dialed from the telephone line to which it is attached).”
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.