169.151
Expenses of keeping prisoners; reimbursement from prisoners; amounts;
procedures. (1) A
city or, notwithstanding ORS 169.150 (1), a county may seek reimbursement from
a person who is or was committed to the local correctional facility of the
county or city upon conviction of a crime for any expenses incurred by the
county or city in safekeeping and maintaining the person. The county or city
may seek reimbursement:
(a) At a rate of
$60 per day or its actual daily cost of safekeeping and maintaining the person,
whichever is less, multiplied by the total number of days the person was
confined to the local correctional facility, including, but not limited to, any
period of pretrial detention; and
(b) For any other
charges or expenses that the county or city is entitled to recover under ORS
169.150.
(2) The county or
city may seek reimbursement for expenses as provided in subsection (1) of this
section by filing a civil action no later than six years after the person from
whom reimbursement is sought is released from the local correctional facility.
(3) When a person
is found liable for expenses described in subsection (1) of this section and an
amount is determined, the court shall, before entering a judgment against the person,
allow the person to present evidence on the issue of the person’s ability to
pay. When a person presents such evidence, the court shall determine the person’s
ability to pay taking into consideration:
(a) The financial
resources of the person and the burden that payment will impose on the person
in providing basic economic necessities to the person or the person’s dependent
family; and
(b) Any other
monetary obligations imposed upon the person by the court as a result of the
conviction for which the person was committed to the local correctional
facility.
(4) The court,
and not a jury, shall determine the defendant’s ability to pay under subsection
(3) of this section.
(5) Upon the
conclusion of a proceeding under subsection (3) of this section, the court may
enter a judgment:
(a) Of dismissal
if the court finds that the person lacks the ability to pay;
(b) For less than
the full amount determined if the court finds that the person has the ability
to pay a portion of the amount; or
(c) For the full
amount determined, plus costs and disbursements, if the court determines the
person has the ability to pay.
(6) Any
reimbursements collected under this section must be credited to the general
fund of the county or city to be available for general fund purposes. [1997
c.349 §2; 1999 c.801 §2; 2009 c.783 §15]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case:
State v. Johnston
State v. Johnston (2001)
orctapp · cites it 16×
“According to defendant, costs for confinement of a person in a local correctional facility may be assessed and recovered only as provided in ORS 169.151. The state responds that the trial court’s order was authorized under ORS 137.”
State v. Barr (2024)
orctapp · cites it 4×
“The problem with that argument is that ORS 169.151—which the parties agree is the apparent Cite as 331 Or App 242 (2024) 245 source of the “per diem” fees referenced in the judgment— allows a city or county to seek per diem reimbursement for pretrial detention, if the person is…”
State v. Schay-Vivero (2024)
orctapp · cites it 4×
“Cite as 333 Or App 168 (2024) 171 pay any required per diem fees does not necessitate resen- tencing because that “clause does not impose any obliga- tion, disability, or potential financial liability that does not exist simply by operation of ORS 169.151.” That is so, in the…”
State v. Barr (2024)
orctapp · cites it 4×
“The problem with that argument is that ORS 169.151—which the parties agree is the apparent Cite as 331 Or App 242 (2024) 245 source of the “per diem” fees referenced in the judgment— allows a city or county to seek per diem reimbursement for pretrial detention, if the person is…”
State v. Schay-Vivero (2024)
orctapp · cites it 3×
“Cite as 333 Or App 168 (2024) 171 pay any required per diem fees does not necessitate resen- tencing because that “clause does not impose any obliga- tion, disability, or potential financial liability that does not exist simply by operation of ORS 169.151.” That is so, in the…”
State v. White (2024)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“A defendant may argue that the defendant does not have the ability to pay the fees and the court shall account for a defendant’s ability to pay such fees before imposing them.”
Hefflinger v. Dept. of Rev. (2025)
ortc
“100; “(d) A community college or community college district; “(e) A county, for debts arising pursuant to a judgment obtained under ORS 169.151; or “(f) The Oregon State Bar, notwithstanding ORS 9.”
State v. Turner (2025)
orctapp
“Johnston, 176 Or App 418, 428 , 31 P3d 1101, 1106 (2001) (construing ORS 169.151 in the context of conditions of probation).”
State v. Turner (2025)
orctapp
“Johnston, 176 Or App 418, 428 , 31 P3d 1101, 1106 (2001) (construing ORS 169.151 in the context of conditions of probation).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 169.151(1) — 2 cases
State v. Schay-Vivero (2024)
orctapp
“Cite as 333 Or App 168 (2024) 171 pay any required per diem fees does not necessitate resen- tencing because that “clause does not impose any obliga- tion, disability, or potential financial liability that does not exist simply by operation of ORS 169.151.” That is so, in the…”
State v. Schay-Vivero (2024)
orctapp
“Cite as 333 Or App 168 (2024) 171 pay any required per diem fees does not necessitate resen- tencing because that “clause does not impose any obliga- tion, disability, or potential financial liability that does not exist simply by operation of ORS 169.151.” That is so, in the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 169.151(1)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Barr (2024)
orctapp
“The problem with that argument is that ORS 169.151—which the parties agree is the apparent Cite as 331 Or App 242 (2024) 245 source of the “per diem” fees referenced in the judgment— allows a city or county to seek per diem reimbursement for pretrial detention, if the person is…”
State v. Barr (2024)
orctapp
“The problem with that argument is that ORS 169.151—which the parties agree is the apparent Cite as 331 Or App 242 (2024) 245 source of the “per diem” fees referenced in the judgment— allows a city or county to seek per diem reimbursement for pretrial detention, if the person is…”
State v. White (2024)
orctapp
“A defendant may argue that the defendant does not have the ability to pay the fees and the court shall account for a defendant’s ability to pay such fees before imposing them.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 169.151(3) — 1 case
State v. White (2024)
orctapp
“A defendant may argue that the defendant does not have the ability to pay the fees and the court shall account for a defendant’s ability to pay such fees before imposing them.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 169.151(6) — 1 case
State v. Johnston (2001)
orctapp
“According to defendant, costs for confinement of a person in a local correctional facility may be assessed and recovered only as provided in ORS 169.151. The state responds that the trial court’s order was authorized under ORS 137.”
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.