166.116
Interfering with public transportation. (1) A person commits the crime of interfering with
public transportation if the person:
(a) Intentionally
or knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or on a public transit vehicle or
public transit station;
(b) Intentionally
or knowingly interferes with the provision or use of public transportation
services by, among other things, interfering with the movement of, or access
to, public transit vehicles;
(c) While in or
on a public transit vehicle or public transit station, engages in disorderly
conduct in the second degree as defined in ORS 166.025;
(d) Subjects a
public transportation passenger, employee, agent or security officer or transit
police officer to offensive physical contact; or
(e) While in or
on a public transit vehicle, knowingly ingests, inhales, ignites, injects or
otherwise consumes a controlled substance that is not lawfully possessed by the
person.
(2)(a)(A)
Interfering with public transportation as provided in subsection (1)(a) of this
section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(B)
Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, interfering with public
transportation as provided in subsection (1)(a) of this section is a Class A
misdemeanor if the person has three or more prior convictions for interfering
with public transportation as provided in subsection (1)(a) of this section.
(b) Interfering
with public transportation as provided in subsection (1)(b) to (e) of this
section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(3) As used in
this section:
(a) “Controlled
substance” has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.005.
(b) “Enter or
remain unlawfully” has the meaning given that term in ORS 164.205.
(c) “Public
transit station” includes all facilities, structures, lands and rights of way
that are owned, leased, held or used for the purposes of providing public
transportation services.
(d) “Public
transit vehicle” means a vehicle that is used for public transportation or
operated by or under contract to any public body in order to provide public
transportation.
(e) “Public
transportation” means transportation provided by a city, county, special
district or any other political subdivision or municipal or public corporation.
[2001 c.851 §3 (enacted in lieu of 166.115); 2005 c.631 §4; 2017 c.454 §1; 2024
c.58 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2010–2023 · leading case:
State v. Hawkins, 380 P.3d 979 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Hawkins, 380 P.3d 979 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “025; and interfering with public transportation, ORS 166.116. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgments of acquittal of the latter two crimes because his conduct did not create a physically offensive condition, which the state was required to…”
State v. Bledsoe, 487 P.3d 862 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“1 Defendant was also charged with several other offenses relating to her failure to pay her fare and for kicking one of the arresting officers, including interfering with public transportation, ORS 166.116, harassment, ORS 166.065, criminal trespass in the second degree, ORS 164.”
State v. Pitts, 535 P.3d 349 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 6× “On appeal, defendant assigned error to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on Count 1, which pertained to a verbal altercation with the bus driver inside the bus.”
State v. Begay, 225 P.3d 108 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 7× “Accordingly, he arrested defendant, and defendant was charged by complaint with one count of interfering with public transportation, ORS 166.116. That statute provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of interfering with public transportation if the person: “(a)…”
State v. Pitts (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “Defendant was found guilty of two counts of interfer- ing with public transportation (IPT), ORS 166.116 (Counts 1 and 3), based on an incident involving a TriMet bus.”
State v. Muhammad, 412 P.3d 273 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“065, and one count of interfering with public transportation, ORS 166.116, contending that the trial court erred in denying his request to represent himself.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.116(1)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Pitts, 535 P.3d 349 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“On appeal, defendant assigned error to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on Count 1, which pertained to a verbal altercation with the bus driver inside the bus.”
State v. Pitts (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Defendant was found guilty of two counts of interfer- ing with public transportation (IPT), ORS 166.116 (Counts 1 and 3), based on an incident involving a TriMet bus.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.116(1)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Pitts, 535 P.3d 349 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“On appeal, defendant assigned error to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on Count 1, which pertained to a verbal altercation with the bus driver inside the bus.”
State v. Pitts (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Defendant was found guilty of two counts of interfer- ing with public transportation (IPT), ORS 166.116 (Counts 1 and 3), based on an incident involving a TriMet bus.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.116(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Begay, 225 P.3d 108 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Accordingly, he arrested defendant, and defendant was charged by complaint with one count of interfering with public transportation, ORS 166.116. That statute provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of interfering with public transportation if the person: “(a)…”
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.