181A.820
Enforcement of federal immigration laws; civil action for violation. (1) As used in this section:
(a) “Federal
immigration authority” has the meaning given that term in ORS 180.805.
(b) “Warrant of
arrest” has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.005.
(2) A law
enforcement agency may not use agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the
purpose of detecting or apprehending persons for the purpose of enforcing
federal immigration laws.
(3) A law
enforcement agency may not enter into a formal or informal agreement with a
federal immigration authority relating to the detention of a person described
in subsection (2) of this section.
(4)
Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, a law enforcement agency may
exchange information with a federal immigration authority in order to request
criminal investigation information with reference to persons named in records
of the federal immigration authority.
(5)
Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, a law enforcement agency may
arrest any person who:
(a) Is charged by
the United States with a criminal violation of federal immigration laws under
Title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act or 18 U.S.C. 1015, 1422 to 1429
or 1505; and
(b) Is subject to
arrest for the crime pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by a federal
magistrate.
(6) Any person
may bring a civil action against a law enforcement agency that violates
subsection (2) or (3) of this section to enjoin the violation.
(7) For purposes
of subsection (2) or (3) of this section, the Bureau of Labor and Industries is
not a law enforcement agency. [Formerly 181.850; 2019 c.13 §32; 2021 c.550 §9]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2016–2022 · leading case:
Cruz v. Multnomah Cnty., 381 P.3d 856 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
Cruz v. Multnomah Cnty., 381 P.3d 856 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
· cites it 21× “Defendants also argued that ORS 181A.820 did not apply to their detention of plaintiff and, in any event, does not provide for a private right of action.”
Tovar Hernandez Jr. v. Washington Cnty. (D. Or. 2022).
· cites it 21× “The Court grants the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s NIED and negligence per se claims because he has not shown that his relationship to Defendant supports a negligence claim based on a non-physical injury or that ORS 181A.820 can be used to establish negligence per se liability.”
State of Oregon v. Trump (D. Or. 2019).
· cites it 14× “That delay was the result of concerns within the Department of Justice that at least one Oregon law, Or. Rev. Stat. § 181A.820, prevents the State of Oregon from satisfying the Notice, Access, and Compliance Conditions.”
Alberto-Toledo v. Pulver (D. Or. 2021).
· cites it 6× “” Or. Rev. Stat. § 181A.820. Thus, it is unlikely that Washington County has an agreement with ICE or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain individuals for civil immigration violations.”
Alberto-Toledo v. Pulver (D. Or. 2022).
“April 11, 2014) Information provided pursuant to ORS 181A.820 Id. Ex. 3 at 1. On or around March 30, 2020, plaintiff was transported and booked into the Washington County Jail.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 181A.820(1) — 3 cases
Cruz v. Multnomah Cnty., 381 P.3d 856 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“Defendants also argued that ORS 181A.820 did not apply to their detention of plaintiff and, in any event, does not provide for a private right of action.”
Tovar Hernandez Jr. v. Washington Cnty. (D. Or. 2022).
“The Court grants the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s NIED and negligence per se claims because he has not shown that his relationship to Defendant supports a negligence claim based on a non-physical injury or that ORS 181A.820 can be used to establish negligence per se liability.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 181A.820(6) — 1 case
Tovar Hernandez Jr. v. Washington Cnty. (D. Or. 2022).
“The Court grants the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s NIED and negligence per se claims because he has not shown that his relationship to Defendant supports a negligence claim based on a non-physical injury or that ORS 181A.820 can be used to establish negligence per se liability.”
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.