165.800
Identity theft.
(1) A person commits the crime of identity theft if the person, with the intent
to deceive or to defraud, obtains, possesses, transfers, creates, utters or
converts to the person’s own use the personal identification of another person.
(2) Identity
theft is a Class C felony.
(3) It is an
affirmative defense to violating subsection (1) of this section that the person
charged with the offense:
(a) Was under 21
years of age at the time of committing the offense and the person used the
personal identification of another person solely for the purpose of purchasing
alcohol, tobacco products as defined in ORS 431A.175 or inhalant delivery
systems as defined in ORS 431A.175; or
(b) Used the
personal identification of another person solely for the purpose of
misrepresenting the person’s age to gain access to a:
(A) Place the
access to which is restricted based on age; or
(B) Benefit based
on age.
(4) As used in
this section:
(a) “Another
person” means an individual, whether living or deceased, an imaginary person or
a firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, company,
corporation, limited liability company, professional corporation or other
private or public entity.
(b) “Personal
identification” includes, but is not limited to, any written document or
electronic data that does, or purports to, provide information concerning:
(A) A person’s
name, address or telephone number;
(B) A person’s
driving privileges;
(C) A person’s
Social Security number or tax identification number;
(D) A person’s
citizenship status or an identification number assigned to a noncitizen;
(E) A person’s
employment status, employer or place of employment;
(F) The identification
number assigned to a person by a person’s employer;
(G) The maiden
name of a person or a person’s mother;
(H) The
identifying number of a person’s depository account at a “financial institution”
or “trust company,” as those terms are defined in ORS 706.008, or a credit card
account;
(I) A person’s
signature or a copy of a person’s signature;
(J) A person’s
electronic mail name, electronic mail signature, electronic mail address or
electronic mail account;
(K) A person’s
photograph;
(L) A person’s
date of birth; and
(M) A person’s
personal identification number. [1999 c.1022 §1; 2001 c.870 §3; 2007 c.583 §1;
2013 c.158 §34; 2015 c.158 §25; 2017 c.701 §15; 2022 c.97 §4]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
140
cases (
35 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case:
State v. Bowen, 380 P.3d 1054 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Bowen, 380 P.3d 1054 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 28× “', see also Medina, 357 Or at 260-61 (describing the legislative history of ORS 165.800). During a hearing on HB 2623 in March 1999, the House Judiciary Criminal Law Committee (the committee) received testimony describing the federal Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act…”
State v. Gensitskiy, 446 P.3d 26 (Or. 2019).
· cites it 20× “803, which the legislature enacted to create a new, more serious crime than identity theft as defined by ORS 165.800. The state can charge a defendant with aggravated identity theft by aggregating multiple identity thefts.”
State v. Medina, 324 P.3d 526 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 24× “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for identity theft under ORS 165.800, 1 which arose out of an incident in which defendant identified himself as another person to a police officer during a traffic stop, signed the name of that other person on documents at the police…”
State v. Ritter, 380 P.3d 1160 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 9× “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for multiple charges, including one count of identity theft, ORS 165.800. Defendant assigns error only to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the identity theft charge.”
State v. Alvarez-Amador, 232 P.3d 989 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 12× “Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of identity theft, ORS 165.800. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal but did err by admitting into evidence a certification from the…”
State v. Medina, 355 P.3d 108 (Or. 2015).
· cites it 8× “ORS 165.800 prohibits committing certain acts “with the intent to deceive,” as well as the intent to defraud.”
State v. Mullen, 263 P.3d 1146 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 13× “Thus, we must examine who qualifies as a victim within the meaning of the identity theft statute, ORS 165.800. In construing that statute, we examine the text of the statute in context, along with any relevant legislative history, to discern the legislature’s intent.”
State v. Poston, 370 P.3d 904 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “012, and 26 counts of identity theft, ORS 165.800. He contends that the indictment was legally defective because it did not expressly allege a basis for joining multiple counts in a single indictment or otherwise allege facts showing that the charges were properly joined and,…”
Mandujano-Real v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 585 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.800 . As the Government concedes, Oregon’s identity theft statute plainly encompasses conduct not comprehended within the scope of a generic theft offense.”
State v. Funrue, 339 Or. App. 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 10× “Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of identity theft, ORS 165.800 (Count 1); second-degree theft, ORS 164.”
State v. Simmons, 516 P.3d 1203 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “As to each count, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence was legally insufficient to prove a necessary element of the crime.”
State v. Stutte, 568 P.3d 247 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “” See ORS 165.800(1) (“A person commits the crime of identity theft if the person, with the intent to deceive or to defraud, obtains, possesses, transfers, creates, utters or converts to the person’s own use the personal identification of another person.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.800(1) — 35 cases
State v. Bowen, 380 P.3d 1054 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“', see also Medina, 357 Or at 260-61 (describing the legislative history of ORS 165.800). During a hearing on HB 2623 in March 1999, the House Judiciary Criminal Law Committee (the committee) received testimony describing the federal Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act…”
State v. Ritter, 380 P.3d 1160 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for multiple charges, including one count of identity theft, ORS 165.800. Defendant assigns error only to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the identity theft charge.”
State v. Alvarez-Amador, 232 P.3d 989 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of identity theft, ORS 165.800. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal but did err by admitting into evidence a certification from the…”
State v. Medina, 355 P.3d 108 (Or. 2015).
“ORS 165.800 prohibits committing certain acts “with the intent to deceive,” as well as the intent to defraud.”
State v. Stutte, 568 P.3d 247 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“” See ORS 165.800(1) (“A person commits the crime of identity theft if the person, with the intent to deceive or to defraud, obtains, possesses, transfers, creates, utters or converts to the person’s own use the personal identification of another person.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.800(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.800(3) — 3 cases
State v. Alvarez-Amador, 232 P.3d 989 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of identity theft, ORS 165.800. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal but did err by admitting into evidence a certification from the…”
State v. Medina, 355 P.3d 108 (Or. 2015).
“ORS 165.800 prohibits committing certain acts “with the intent to deceive,” as well as the intent to defraud.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.800(4) — 1 case
State v. Medina, 324 P.3d 526 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for identity theft under ORS 165.800, 1 which arose out of an incident in which defendant identified himself as another person to a police officer during a traffic stop, signed the name of that other person on documents at the police…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.800(4)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.800(4)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Medina, 355 P.3d 108 (Or. 2015).
“ORS 165.800 prohibits committing certain acts “with the intent to deceive,” as well as the intent to defraud.”
State v. Mullen, 263 P.3d 1146 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Thus, we must examine who qualifies as a victim within the meaning of the identity theft statute, ORS 165.800. In construing that statute, we examine the text of the statute in context, along with any relevant legislative history, to discern the legislature’s intent.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.800(4)(b) — 8 cases
State v. Gensitskiy, 446 P.3d 26 (Or. 2019).
“803, which the legislature enacted to create a new, more serious crime than identity theft as defined by ORS 165.800. The state can charge a defendant with aggravated identity theft by aggregating multiple identity thefts.”
State v. Medina, 355 P.3d 108 (Or. 2015).
“ORS 165.800 prohibits committing certain acts “with the intent to deceive,” as well as the intent to defraud.”
State v. Medina, 324 P.3d 526 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for identity theft under ORS 165.800, 1 which arose out of an incident in which defendant identified himself as another person to a police officer during a traffic stop, signed the name of that other person on documents at the police…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.800(4)(b)(C) — 1 case
State v. Alvarez-Amador, 232 P.3d 989 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of identity theft, ORS 165.800. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal but did err by admitting into evidence a certification from the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.800(4)(b)(H) — 3 cases
State v. Stutte, 568 P.3d 247 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“” See ORS 165.800(1) (“A person commits the crime of identity theft if the person, with the intent to deceive or to defraud, obtains, possesses, transfers, creates, utters or converts to the person’s own use the personal identification of another person.”
State v. Bowen, 380 P.3d 1054 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“', see also Medina, 357 Or at 260-61 (describing the legislative history of ORS 165.800). During a hearing on HB 2623 in March 1999, the House Judiciary Criminal Law Committee (the committee) received testimony describing the federal Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.800(4)(b)(M) — 1 case
State v. Ritter, 380 P.3d 1160 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for multiple charges, including one count of identity theft, ORS 165.800. Defendant assigns error only to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the identity theft charge.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.800(b)(H) — 1 case
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.