167.164
Possession of a gray machine; disposition of machine; defense. (1) A person commits the crime of
possession of a gray machine if the person manufactures, sells, leases,
transports, places, possesses or services a gray machine or conducts or
negotiates a transaction affecting or designed to affect the ownership, custody
or use of a gray machine.
(2) Possession of
a gray machine is a Class C felony.
(3) If any device
is seized by a law enforcement agency based on a contention that the device is
a gray machine, and a motion for return or restoration of the device is filed
under ORS 133.633, the burden of proof is on the state to establish that the device
is in fact a gray machine.
(4) Violation of,
solicitation to violate, attempt to violate or conspiracy to violate subsection
(1) of this section constitutes prohibited conduct for purposes of ORS chapter
131A. A device that is claimed to be a gray machine may be destroyed or otherwise
disposed of only if a judgment of forfeiture has been entered under ORS 131.550
to 131.600 or ORS chapter 131A.
(5) It is a
defense to a charge of possession of a gray machine if the machine that caused
the charge to be brought was manufactured prior to 1958 and was not operated
for purposes of unlawful gambling. [1991 c.962 §5; 1999 c.59 §33; 2009 c.78 §58;
2013 c.128 §1]
167.165 [Repealed by 1963 c.340 §1
(167.170 enacted in lieu of 167.165)]
Notes of Decisions
State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 897 P.2d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“147(3); ORS 167.164(4); ORS 167.242. It is apparent that, when the legislature wants to describe a defense, it knows how to do so.”
Thomas v. State Dep't of State Police, 907 P.2d 262 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff contended that the 1991 enactment and subsequent enforcement of ORS 167.164 constituted an uncompensated taking of plaintiffs property, in violation of Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Harelson, 938 P.2d 763 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“295, all arising from his looting of Native American archeological sites in Nevada during the 1980’s, and of one count each of possession of a gray machine, ORS 167.164, and possession of a slot machine, ORS 167.”
Evans v. Attorney Gen., 939 P.2d 111 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“117 to ORS 167.164. PETITIONER’S ACTIVITIES UNDER ORS CHAPTER 464 The DOJ’s order specifically states that petitioner violated ORS 464.”
OK Novelty Serv., Inc. v. State, 909 P.2d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 3× “In 1991, the Oregon legislature enacted ORS 167.164, which, among other things, made it unlawful for a person to lease, service or possess a gray machine in Oregon after December 1, 1991.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.164(4) — 1 case
State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 897 P.2d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“147(3); ORS 167.164(4); ORS 167.242. It is apparent that, when the legislature wants to describe a defense, it knows how to do so.”
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.