Legal Opinion
State v. Ausmus
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided December 19, 2001No. 9901-10130, 9812-51296, 9901-40371, 9901-40129, 9901-0128, 9901-40231, 9905-43654, 9901-40232, 9901-0126, 9812-51298, 9901-10234 A107691 (Control), A107692, A107693, A107694, A107695, A107696, A107697, A107698, A107699, A107700, A107701PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLandau, P. J.
ORS 166.025(1) provides, in part:
“A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
“(e) Congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse [.]”
At issue in this case is the facial constitutionality of that statute. In each of the several cases consolidated for the purposes of this appeal, the trial court concluded that ORS 166.025(l)(e) is unconstitutionally vague and sustained demurrers to indictments charging…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. BatchelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- State v. RobertsonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- State of Oregon v. PirkeyOregon Supreme Court · 1955
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. Illig-RennOregon Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. AusmusOregon Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. AndreCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- State v. Illig-RennCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
- State v. Illig-RennCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.