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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 815.025 (2026)

Causing unreasonable noise with vehicle; penalty

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

      815.025 Causing unreasonable noise with vehicle; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of causing unreasonable noise with a vehicle if the person operates upon any highway any motor vehicle so as to cause any greater noise or sound than is reasonably necessary for the proper operation of the vehicle.

      (2) The offense described in this section, causing unreasonable noise with a vehicle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §438; 1987 c.158 §171; 1995 c.383 §22]

 

AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1988–2012 · leading case: State v. Lopez-Vega, 826 P.2d 48 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Lopez-Vega, 826 P.2d 48 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 20× “He contends that ORS 815.025 and ORS 166.025 preempt the ordinance, because it prohibits conduct that is permitted under those statutes.”
State v. Higley, 237 P.3d 875 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “At trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence discovered during and after the stop, arguing that the stop was unlawful because the statute purportedly authorizing it, ORS 815.025, was unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Doherty, 757 P.2d 860 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “ORS 815.025. He assigns as error the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the stop of his motorcycle.”
State v. Herrin, 915 P.2d 953 (Or. 1996). “See ORS 815.025 (describing infraction of causing unreasonable noise with a vehicle).”
State v. Ordner, 287 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “ORS 815.025. We agreed and held: “Although the officer did not cite defendant for causing unreasonable noise, the facts relied upon by the officer, when viewed objectively, provided probable cause to believe that that traffic infraction had been committed.”
Pomerenke v. Motor Vehs. Div., 896 P.2d 1214 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “ORS 815.025. We agreed and held: “Although the officer did not cite defendant for causing unreasonable noise, the facts relied upon by the officer, when viewed objectively, provided probable cause to believe that that traffic infraction had been committed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 815.025(1) — 2 cases
State v. Lopez-Vega, 826 P.2d 48 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “He contends that ORS 815.025 and ORS 166.025 preempt the ordinance, because it prohibits conduct that is permitted under those statutes.”
State v. Higley, 237 P.3d 875 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “At trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence discovered during and after the stop, arguing that the stop was unlawful because the statute purportedly authorizing it, ORS 815.025, was unconstitutionally vague.”
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.