Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.070

Aggravated harassment

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

      166.070 Aggravated harassment. (1) A person commits the crime of aggravated harassment if the person, knowing that the other person is a:

      (a) Staff member, knowingly propels saliva, blood, urine, semen, feces or other dangerous substance at the staff member while the staff member is acting in the course of official duty or as a result of the staff member’s official duties;

      (b) Public safety officer, knowingly propels blood, urine, semen or feces at the public safety officer while the public safety officer is acting in the course of official duty or as a result of the public safety officer’s official duties; or

      (c) Public safety officer, intentionally propels saliva at the public safety officer, and the saliva comes into physical contact with the public safety officer, while the public safety officer is acting in the course of official duty or as a result of the public safety officer’s official duties.

      (2) Aggravated harassment is a Class C felony. When a person is convicted of violating subsection (1)(a) of this section, in addition to any other sentence it may impose, the court shall impose a term of incarceration in a state correctional facility.

      (3) As used in this section:

      (a) “Public safety officer” means an emergency medical services provider as defined in ORS 682.025, a regulatory specialist as defined in ORS 471.001 or a fire service professional, a parole and probation officer or a police officer as those terms are defined in ORS 181A.355.

      (b) “Staff member” has the meaning given that term in ORS 163.165. [2009 c.783 §2; 2011 c.703 §28; 2012 c.54 §27; 2013 c.477 §1; 2015 c.614 §151]

 

      Note: 166.070 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 166 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2017–2025 · leading case: State v. Vanorden
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Vanorden (2023) orctapp · cites it 9× “Held: Under ORS 166.070, defining the offense of aggravated harassment, the officer with whom the saliva made contact must be the same officer (or officers) to whom the person intentionally propelled the saliva.”
State v. Snodgrass (2023) orctapp · cites it 30× “He argues that evidence that his spit landed on the officer’s pants is insuf- ficient to establish the “physical contact” element for the purpose of a conviction under the applicable statute, ORS 166.070. More specifically, defendant disputes whether the undefined term “physical…”
State v. Kelemen (2019) orctapp “540, including the general condition that defendant "[n]ot use or possess controlled substances except pursuant to a medical prescription," ORS 137.”
State v. Garcia (2017) orctapp “315; and aggravated harassment, ORS 166.070. Article VII (Amended), section 5, provides, in part: “(6) An information shall be substantially in the form provided by law for an indictment.”
State v. Swinney (2025) orctapp · cites it 2× “)); Gilmore, 336 Or App at 714-15 (“[J] ustification for the use of deadly force under ORS 161.”
State v. Phillips (2021) orctapp “See ORS 166.070(1)(c) (“A person commits the crime of aggravated harassment if the person, knowing that the other person is a * * * [p]ublic safety officer, inten- tionally propels saliva at the public safety officer, and the saliva comes into physical contact with the public…”
State v. Moravek (2019) orctapp “*765 Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for aggravated harassment (Count 1), ORS 166.070 ; resisting arrest (Count 2), ORS 162.”
State v. Hayne (2018) orctapp “208 ; two counts of aggravated harassment, ORS 166.070 ; one count of resisting arrest, ORS 162.”
State v. Snodgrass (2023) orctapp · cites it 27× “He argues that evidence that his spit landed on the officer’s pants is insuf- ficient to establish the “physical contact” element for the purpose of a conviction under the applicable statute, ORS 166.070. More specifically, defendant disputes whether the undefined term “physical…”
State v. A. M. W. (2025) orctapp “See ORS 166.070(1)(c) (making it a Class C felony to intentionally propel saliva at a police officer performing offi- cial duties, if the saliva “comes into physical contact” with the officer).”
Kent v. Kelly (2025) orctapp “175 only to cases where the defendant intends to engage in assaultive conduct toward a particular person that results in (serious) physical injury to the same person, it readily could have done so,” as it did with aggra- vated harassment, ORS 166.070(1)(c), by using “a definite…”
State v. Swinney (2025) orctapp · cites it 2× “)); Gilmore, 336 Or App at 714-15 (“[J]ustification for the use of deadly force under ORS 161.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.070(1)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Snodgrass (2023) orctapp “He argues that evidence that his spit landed on the officer’s pants is insuf- ficient to establish the “physical contact” element for the purpose of a conviction under the applicable statute, ORS 166.070. More specifically, defendant disputes whether the undefined term “physical…”
State v. Snodgrass (2023) orctapp “He argues that evidence that his spit landed on the officer’s pants is insuf- ficient to establish the “physical contact” element for the purpose of a conviction under the applicable statute, ORS 166.070. More specifically, defendant disputes whether the undefined term “physical…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.070(1)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Snodgrass (2023) orctapp “He argues that evidence that his spit landed on the officer’s pants is insuf- ficient to establish the “physical contact” element for the purpose of a conviction under the applicable statute, ORS 166.070. More specifically, defendant disputes whether the undefined term “physical…”
State v. Snodgrass (2023) orctapp “He argues that evidence that his spit landed on the officer’s pants is insuf- ficient to establish the “physical contact” element for the purpose of a conviction under the applicable statute, ORS 166.070. More specifically, defendant disputes whether the undefined term “physical…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.070(1)(c) — 11 cases
State v. Vanorden (2023) orctapp “Held: Under ORS 166.070, defining the offense of aggravated harassment, the officer with whom the saliva made contact must be the same officer (or officers) to whom the person intentionally propelled the saliva.”
State v. Snodgrass (2023) orctapp “He argues that evidence that his spit landed on the officer’s pants is insuf- ficient to establish the “physical contact” element for the purpose of a conviction under the applicable statute, ORS 166.070. More specifically, defendant disputes whether the undefined term “physical…”
State v. Swinney (2025) orctapp “)); Gilmore, 336 Or App at 714-15 (“[J] ustification for the use of deadly force under ORS 161.”
State v. Phillips (2021) orctapp “See ORS 166.070(1)(c) (“A person commits the crime of aggravated harassment if the person, knowing that the other person is a * * * [p]ublic safety officer, inten- tionally propels saliva at the public safety officer, and the saliva comes into physical contact with the public…”
State v. Snodgrass (2023) orctapp “He argues that evidence that his spit landed on the officer’s pants is insuf- ficient to establish the “physical contact” element for the purpose of a conviction under the applicable statute, ORS 166.070. More specifically, defendant disputes whether the undefined term “physical…”
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.