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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.222 (2026)

Frequenting a place where controlled substances are used

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

      167.222 Frequenting a place where controlled substances are used. (1) A person commits the offense of frequenting a place where controlled substances are used if the person keeps, maintains, frequents, or remains at a place, while knowingly permitting persons to use controlled substances in such place or to keep or sell them in violation of ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.752 to 475.980.

      (2) Frequenting a place where controlled substances are used is a Class A misdemeanor.

      (3) As used in this section, “frequents” means repeatedly or habitually visits, goes to or resorts to. [1971 c.743 §277; 1974 c.43 §1; 1977 c.745 §35; 1979 c.641 §1; 1991 c.67 §41; 1993 c.469 §3; 1995 c.440 §16; 1999 c.1051 §160; 2017 c.21 §47]

 

      167.225 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

 

      167.227 [1969 c.655 §2; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

 

      167.228 [1971 c.743 §278; repealed by 1977 c.745 §54]

 

      167.230 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

 

      167.232 [1971 c.743 §278a; repealed by 1977 c.745 §54]

 

      167.235 [Amended by 1967 c.527 §1; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

 

      167.237 [1967 c.527 §2; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2024 · leading case: State v. Van Osdol, 417 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Van Osdol, 417 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 31× “850, and frequenting a place where controlled substances are used, ORS 167.222. Defendant argues that the affidavit submitted in support of the warrant failed to establish that the police had probable cause to believe that evidence of either of those crimes would be found in the…”
State v. Smith, 571 P.2d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 46× “Defendant appeals her conviction upon trial to the court for criminal drug promotion in violation of ORS 167.222, [1] contending *543 that ORS 167.”
State v. Pyritz, 752 P.2d 1310 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 22× “Defendant was accused of violating ORS 167.222, which prohibits “frequenting a place where controlled substances are used.”
State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 365 P.3d 116 (Or. 2015). · cites it 4× “, ORS 167.222 (prohibiting maintaining a place resorted to by drug users).”
State v. Ingram, 802 P.2d 656 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6× “We interpret the face of the warrant to authorize the search of those persons who could be charged with a violation of ORS 167.222(1). [2] *664 Although Nelson's affidavit does not specifically describe defendant, it does describe a mobile home where controlled substances are…”
State v. Jury, 57 P.3d 970 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “992; ORS 167.222. At trial, the court admitted evidence that the police had obtained through the use of a body wire that they had placed on an informant.”
State v. Miller, 422 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “886 (Count 11); and one count of frequenting a place where controlled substances are used, ORS 167.222 (Count 14). 1 The trial court imposed concurrent sentences totaling 81 months in prison, which included the statutorily required mandatory minimum sentences applicable to many…”
State v. Reiland, 958 P.2d 900 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “Defendant was convicted by a jury of four counts of endangering the welfare of a minor, four counts of child neglect in the first degree, and one count of frequenting a place where controlled substances are used, ORS 167.222(1), 3 based on the fact that marijuana was found in…”
State v. Paulson, 833 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1992). “555(3), based on the officer’s oral affidavit reciting Kelli’s and Scott’s statements in the apartment, the officer’s observation of the rolled-up dollar bill and the white powder, and Scott’s admissions at the hospital.”
In Re Jaffee, 874 P.2d 1299 (Or. 1994). · cites it 2× “Also based on that plea bargain, his female companion was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of Frequenting A Place Where Controlled Substances Are Kept, ORS 167.222, a Class A misdemeanor, and she was placed on three years supervised probation and fined $750.”
State v. Evans, 983 P.2d 1055 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “992, and one count of frequenting a place where controlled substances are used, ORS 167.222. They appeal, challengingthe trial court’s denial of their motion to suppress evidence seized during execution of a search warrant, contending that the warrant was not supported by…”
State v. Howard, 129 P.3d 792 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “992(4), and frequenting a place where controlled substances are used, ORS 167.222. The pertinent facts are straightforward and undisputed.”
Show all 57 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.222(1) — 19 cases
State v. Pyritz, 752 P.2d 1310 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “Defendant was accused of violating ORS 167.222, which prohibits “frequenting a place where controlled substances are used.”
State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 365 P.3d 116 (Or. 2015). “, ORS 167.222 (prohibiting maintaining a place resorted to by drug users).”
State v. Ingram, 802 P.2d 656 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “We interpret the face of the warrant to authorize the search of those persons who could be charged with a violation of ORS 167.222(1). [2] *664 Although Nelson's affidavit does not specifically describe defendant, it does describe a mobile home where controlled substances are…”
State v. Reiland, 958 P.2d 900 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “Defendant was convicted by a jury of four counts of endangering the welfare of a minor, four counts of child neglect in the first degree, and one count of frequenting a place where controlled substances are used, ORS 167.222(1), 3 based on the fact that marijuana was found in…”
State v. Smith, 571 P.2d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “Defendant appeals her conviction upon trial to the court for criminal drug promotion in violation of ORS 167.222, [1] contending *543 that ORS 167.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.222(4) — 2 cases
State v. Van Osdol, 417 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “850, and frequenting a place where controlled substances are used, ORS 167.222. Defendant argues that the affidavit submitted in support of the warrant failed to establish that the police had probable cause to believe that evidence of either of those crimes would be found in the…”
State v. Pyritz, 752 P.2d 1310 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “Defendant was accused of violating ORS 167.222, which prohibits “frequenting a place where controlled substances are used.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.222(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. West, 572 P.2d 349 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
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.