Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.090

Telephonic harassment

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

      166.090 Telephonic harassment. (1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person:

      (a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no communicative purpose;

      (b) By causing such other person’s telephone to ring, knowing that the caller has been forbidden from so doing by a person exercising lawful authority over the receiving telephone; or

      (c) By sending to, or leaving at, the other person’s telephone a text message, voice mail or any other message, knowing that the caller has been forbidden from so doing by a person exercising lawful authority over the receiving telephone.

      (2) Telephonic harassment is a Class B misdemeanor.

      (3) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the caller is a debt collector, as defined in ORS 646.639, who engaged in the conduct proscribed by subsection (1) of this section while attempting to collect a debt. The affirmative defense created by this subsection does not apply if the debt collector committed the unlawful collection practice described in ORS 646.639 (2)(a) while engaged in the conduct proscribed by subsection (1) of this section. [1987 c.806 §2; 1999 c.115 §1; 2005 c.752 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: State v. Shifflett
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Shifflett (2017) orctapp · cites it 17× “]” 2 At trial, the state proceeded on the theory that, after the victim told defendant not to call her on the morning of July 8, defendant violated ORS 166.090 (1)(b) by calling the victim’s phone and leaving two voicemails.”
State v. Hibbard (1991) orctapp · cites it 26× “090(1)(a) is unconstitutional as it applies to him. The state responds that there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict and that the statute is constitutional, because it regulates conduct rather than speech.”
State v. Koenig (2010) orctapp · cites it 11× “Defendant appeals judgments of conviction in two consolidated criminal cases on five counts of telephonic harassment, ORS 166.090, [1] and one count of criminal trespass *651 in the second degree, ORS 164.”
State v. Johnson (2023) orctapp · cites it 7× “732, and tele- phonic harassment, ORS 166.090. Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because his contacts with two indi- viduals were constitutionally protected expressive communications that do not meet the standard…”
State v. Norgard (1998) orctapp · cites it 32× “Defendant appeals from his conviction for telephonic harassment, ORS 166.090, assigning error to the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.”
State v. Cook (2024) orctapp · cites it 12× “Defendant was ultimately charged by information with telephonic harassment under ORS 166.090, in part: 440 State v. Cook “The defendant, on or about October 28, 2020, in Grant County, Oregon, did unlawfully and intentionally harass or annoy [K] by sending to or leaving at the…”
State v. Flores (2025) orctapp · cites it 56× “ORS 166.090 defines the crime of telephonic harassment as follows: “(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no…”
State v. Allison (1997) or · cites it 8× “090 provides, in part: “(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no communicative purpose; or “(b) By causing…”
K. H. v. Mitchell (2001) orctapp · cites it 10× “Before I joined the court, I assisted the legislature in drafting ORS 166.090, the telephone harassment statute.”
State v. Flores (2025) orctapp · cites it 56× “ORS 166.090 defines the crime of telephonic harassment as follows: “(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no…”
State v. Lopez (1997) orctapp · cites it 4× “ORS 166.090. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to acquit.”
State v. Shields (2002) orctapp “732, and three counts of telephonic harassment, ORS 166.090. On appeal, he challenges only the stalking conviction.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.090(1) — 10 cases
State v. Shifflett (2017) orctapp “]” 2 At trial, the state proceeded on the theory that, after the victim told defendant not to call her on the morning of July 8, defendant violated ORS 166.090 (1)(b) by calling the victim’s phone and leaving two voicemails.”
State v. Allison (1997) or “090 provides, in part: “(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no communicative purpose; or “(b) By causing…”
State v. Cook (2024) orctapp “Defendant was ultimately charged by information with telephonic harassment under ORS 166.090, in part: 440 State v. Cook “The defendant, on or about October 28, 2020, in Grant County, Oregon, did unlawfully and intentionally harass or annoy [K] by sending to or leaving at the…”
State v. Koenig (2010) orctapp “Defendant appeals judgments of conviction in two consolidated criminal cases on five counts of telephonic harassment, ORS 166.090, [1] and one count of criminal trespass *651 in the second degree, ORS 164.”
State v. Flores (2025) orctapp “ORS 166.090 defines the crime of telephonic harassment as follows: “(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.090(1)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Hibbard (1991) orctapp “090(1)(a) is unconstitutional as it applies to him. The state responds that there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict and that the statute is constitutional, because it regulates conduct rather than speech.”
State v. Norgard (1998) orctapp “Defendant appeals from his conviction for telephonic harassment, ORS 166.090, assigning error to the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.”
State v. Flores (2025) orctapp “ORS 166.090 defines the crime of telephonic harassment as follows: “(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no…”
State v. Flores (2025) orctapp “ORS 166.090 defines the crime of telephonic harassment as follows: “(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no…”
Laizure v. Washington County (2019) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.090(1)(b) — 10 cases
State v. Shifflett (2017) orctapp “]” 2 At trial, the state proceeded on the theory that, after the victim told defendant not to call her on the morning of July 8, defendant violated ORS 166.090 (1)(b) by calling the victim’s phone and leaving two voicemails.”
State v. Koenig (2010) orctapp “Defendant appeals judgments of conviction in two consolidated criminal cases on five counts of telephonic harassment, ORS 166.090, [1] and one count of criminal trespass *651 in the second degree, ORS 164.”
State v. Johnson (2023) orctapp “732, and tele- phonic harassment, ORS 166.090. Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because his contacts with two indi- viduals were constitutionally protected expressive communications that do not meet the standard…”
State v. Flores (2025) orctapp “ORS 166.090 defines the crime of telephonic harassment as follows: “(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no…”
State v. Norgard (1998) orctapp “Defendant appeals from his conviction for telephonic harassment, ORS 166.090, assigning error to the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.090(1)(c) — 5 cases
State v. Cook (2024) orctapp “Defendant was ultimately charged by information with telephonic harassment under ORS 166.090, in part: 440 State v. Cook “The defendant, on or about October 28, 2020, in Grant County, Oregon, did unlawfully and intentionally harass or annoy [K] by sending to or leaving at the…”
State v. Johnson (2023) orctapp “732, and tele- phonic harassment, ORS 166.090. Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because his contacts with two indi- viduals were constitutionally protected expressive communications that do not meet the standard…”
State v. Flores (2025) orctapp “ORS 166.090 defines the crime of telephonic harassment as follows: “(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no…”
State v. Flores (2025) orctapp “ORS 166.090 defines the crime of telephonic harassment as follows: “(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no…”
State v. Johnson (2023) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.090(3) — 2 cases
State v. Flores (2025) orctapp “ORS 166.090 defines the crime of telephonic harassment as follows: “(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no…”
State v. Flores (2025) orctapp “ORS 166.090 defines the crime of telephonic harassment as follows: “(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.090(a) — 1 case
Laizure v. Washington County (2019) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.090(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Hibbard (1991) orctapp “090(1)(a) is unconstitutional as it applies to him. The state responds that there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict and that the statute is constitutional, because it regulates conduct rather than speech.”
State v. Allison (1997) or “090 provides, in part: “(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no communicative purpose; or “(b) By causing…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.090(l)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Norgard (1998) orctapp “Defendant appeals from his conviction for telephonic harassment, ORS 166.090, assigning error to the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.”
K. H. v. Mitchell (2001) orctapp “Before I joined the court, I assisted the legislature in drafting ORS 166.090, the telephone harassment statute.”
State v. Lopez (1997) orctapp “ORS 166.090. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to acquit.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.090(l)(q) — 1 case
State v. Allison (1997) or “090 provides, in part: “(1) A telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “(a) By causing the telephone of the other person to ring, such caller having no communicative purpose; or “(b) By causing…”
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.