Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.002 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 167.002 to 167.027

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      167.002 Definitions for ORS 167.002 to 167.027. As used in ORS 167.002 to 167.027, unless the context requires otherwise:

      (1) “Place of prostitution” means any place where prostitution is practiced.

      (2) “Prostitute” means a male or female person who engages in sexual conduct or sexual contact for a fee.

      (3) “Prostitution enterprise” means an arrangement whereby two or more prostitutes are organized to conduct prostitution activities.

      (4) “Sexual conduct” means sexual intercourse or oral or anal sexual intercourse.

      (5) “Sexual contact” means any touching of the sexual organs or other intimate parts of a person not married to the actor for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either party. [1971 c.743 §249; 1973 c.699 §5; 2017 c.318 §14]

 

      167.005 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1973–2015 · leading case: State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 10× “062, relating to "live public shows," is facially overbroad does not in any way imply that every type of conduct performed in the course of such a show is somehow protected under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. Viewed in the light most favorable to the state,…”
State v. Ciancanelli, 121 P.3d 613 (Or. 2005). · cites it 4× “" ORS 167.002(1). A "prostitution enterprise" is "an arrangement whereby two or more prostitutes are organized to conduct prostitution activities.”
State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 365 P.3d 116 (Or. 2015). · cites it 2× “See also ORS 167.002 (“‘Place of prostitution’ means any place where prostitution is practiced.”
Schmidt v. Mt. Angel Abbey, 223 P.3d 399 (Or. 2009). · cites it 2× “" ORS 167.002. [16] As noted, the court did reach the issue of respondeat superior liability for Father Frank's conduct.”
Schmidt v. Archdiocese of Portland, 180 P.3d 160 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “to: "(A) Contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor, as defined in ORS chapter 163, and any other conduct which allows, employs, authorizes, permits, induces or encourages a child to engage in the performing for people to observe or the photographing, filming, tape…”
City of Portland v. Dollarhide, 714 P.2d 220 (Or. 1986). “” ORS 167.002 provides, in relevant part: “(4) ‘Sexual conduct’ means sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse.”
State v. Johnston, 31 P.3d 1101 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “317 (Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision may appoint attorney to represent indigent person on parole or post-prison supervision at revocation hearing and to order as a condition of parole or post-prison supervision that the person pay a portion of the attorney fees…”
State v. House, 676 P.2d 892 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “* * * * “(5) As used in ORS 167.002, 167.007, 167.087 and this section unless the context requires otherwise: “(a) ‘Live public show’ means a public show in which human beings, animals, or both appear bodily before spectators or customers.”
Film Follies, Inc. v. Haas, 539 P.2d 669 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “ORS 167.002 is amended to read: “167.002.”
State v. Cordray, 755 P.2d 735 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “His final constitutional challenge is that ORS 167.002(5) defines “sexual contact,” for the purposes of the prostitution statute, by classifying married persons differently than unmarried persons.”
City of Portland v. Potts, 799 P.2d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “” “Sexual contact” is defined as “any touching of the sexual organs or other intimate parts of a person not married to the actor for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either party.”
State v. Liles, 537 P.2d 1182 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “ORS 167.002 is amended to read: “167.002.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.002(1) — 1 case
State v. Ciancanelli, 121 P.3d 613 (Or. 2005). “" ORS 167.002(1). A "prostitution enterprise" is "an arrangement whereby two or more prostitutes are organized to conduct prostitution activities.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.002(2) — 2 cases
State v. Johnston, 31 P.3d 1101 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “317 (Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision may appoint attorney to represent indigent person on parole or post-prison supervision at revocation hearing and to order as a condition of parole or post-prison supervision that the person pay a portion of the attorney fees…”
State v. Kravitz, 511 P.2d 844 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.002(3) — 1 case
State v. Ciancanelli, 121 P.3d 613 (Or. 2005). “" ORS 167.002(1). A "prostitution enterprise" is "an arrangement whereby two or more prostitutes are organized to conduct prostitution activities.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.002(4) — 3 cases
State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “062, relating to "live public shows," is facially overbroad does not in any way imply that every type of conduct performed in the course of such a show is somehow protected under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. Viewed in the light most favorable to the state,…”
City of Portland v. Potts, 799 P.2d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “” “Sexual contact” is defined as “any touching of the sexual organs or other intimate parts of a person not married to the actor for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either party.”
State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.002(5) — 4 cases
State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “062, relating to "live public shows," is facially overbroad does not in any way imply that every type of conduct performed in the course of such a show is somehow protected under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. Viewed in the light most favorable to the state,…”
State v. Cordray, 755 P.2d 735 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “His final constitutional challenge is that ORS 167.002(5) defines “sexual contact,” for the purposes of the prostitution statute, by classifying married persons differently than unmarried persons.”
City of Portland v. Potts, 799 P.2d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “” “Sexual contact” is defined as “any touching of the sexual organs or other intimate parts of a person not married to the actor for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either party.”
State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
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.