State v. Corcilius

In my view, the statutory term "any *** other refuse"-as used in ORS 164.805(1) -is *176broad enough to encompass urine, whether from a human or another animal. I also view the term "deposit"-as used in the same statute-as broad enough to encompass the act of urination. Accordingly, I disagree with the majority's holding that the acts prohibited by ORS 164.805(1) do not include the act of public urination. I respectfully dissent.

As accurately described by the majority, the pertinent facts in this case are few. Defendant urinated on the side of a building, causing a stench. He was cited for…