Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.015

Riot

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

      166.015 Riot. (1) A person commits the crime of riot if while participating with five or more other persons the person engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.

      (2) Riot is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §218]

 

      166.020 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. Chakerian
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Chakerian (1997) or · cites it 33× “In this criminal case, the issue is the facial constitutional validity of ORS 166.015, Oregon’s “riot” statute, which provides: “(1) A person commits the crime of riot if while participating with five or more other persons the person engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and…”
State v. Chakerian (1995) orctapp · cites it 35× “The trial court concluded that the statute underlying those charges, ORS 166.015, is unconstitutionally overbroad.”
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. San Seng Saechao (2000) orctapp · cites it 24× “Youth appeals from an order finding him within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because of acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of riot, assault in the third degree and disorderly conduct.”
State v. Allred (2000) orctapp · cites it 6× “2d 756 (1997), the defendants challenged the constitutional validity of ORS 166.015, [2] the "riot" statute, contending that the statute improperly restrains expression under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution.”
State v. S.-Q. K. (In re S.-Q. K.) (2018) orctapp · cites it 2× “*837 Youth appeals a juvenile court judgment finding him within the court's delinquency jurisdiction for conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute riot, ORS 166.015. At the time of the incident in question, youth was on juvenile court probation for a previous…”
State v. Hall (1998) or · cites it 2× “2d 756 (1997), the court interpreted the phrase "tumultuous *214 and violent conduct" in ORS 166.015. The court quoted and analyzed all relevant dictionary definitions for the terms "tumultuous," "violent," and "conduct.”
State v. S.-Q. K. (In re S.-Q. K.) (2018) orctapp · cites it 2× “Appellant asserts that the opinion "erroneously states that youth was adjudicated for riot, ORS 166.015. 292 Or. App. at 837 , 426 P.”
Hanzo v. dePARRIE (1998) orctapp · cites it 2× “2d 756 (1997) (construing "anti-rioting" statute, ORS 166.015). [15] As noted, Rangel was predicated on Moyle .”
State v. Goodwill (1978) orctapp · cites it 4× “255, (2) denying his motion for acquittal of the burglary charge, and (3) overruling his demurrers for alleged vagueness of the riot statute, ORS 166.015. I Count I of the state’s indictment provides in pertinent part: "The defendant, on August 27, 1976, in Umatilla County,…”
State v. Atwood (2004) orctapp “Chakerian, 325 Or 370, 378-80 , 938 P2d 756 (1997) (considering constitutional challenges to Oregon’s antiriot statute, ORS 166.015, and concluding that that statute’s prohibition against “tumultuous and violent conduct” forbids only “forms of overt criminal behavior that are…”
State v. Mayo (1973) orctapp · cites it 2× “175); Count II, riot (ORS 166.015); and Count III, assault in the third degree (on Officer Guinn) (ORS 163.”
State v. Lewis (2024) orctapp · cites it 2× “Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of riot, ORS 166.015. Defendant raises three assignments of error, asserting that the trial court erred by (1) actively investigating the vote composition of the jury before it had reached a verdict; (2) instructing…”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.015(1) — 4 cases
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. San Seng Saechao (2000) orctapp “Youth appeals from an order finding him within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because of acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of riot, assault in the third degree and disorderly conduct.”
State v. Hicks (1993) orctapp
State v. L. N. S. R. (2025) orctapp
State v. L. N. S. R. (2025) orctapp
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.