State v. Neff, 246 OrApp 186 (2011)

Holding:   In traffic stop, where the police officer had informed the driver that he (the officer) was recording the conversation, the driver did not have to announce that he was recording the conversation, as well.

1)   “Our goal is to determine the intended meaning of * * * statutes by examining their text in context, along with relevant legislative history, and, if necessary, other aids to construction.” citing State v. Gaines. at p. 191.

2)   Generally, but not always, when the lawmakers employ “the passive voice with regard to an action that a statute either authorizes or requires (e.g., ‘may be established,’ ‘shall be made’), that usage indicates an intention to avoid specifying a particular actor to whom the statute’s command is directed.” at p. 191.

3)   Where the statute’s text does not conclusively inform the meaning of the statute, Courts turn to the context. at p. 191.

4)   “Statutory context includes earlier-enacted statutes, but does not include later-enacted statutes, including later-enacted subsections” of the statute at bar. at p. 192.

5)   Fact that subsections (a), (b), and (d) use the active voice, while (c) uses the passive voice, indicates that (c) applies to the conversation, in general, rather than any participant, in particular. at p. 193.

6)   Textual ambiguity not required before legislative history can be considered. citing State v. Gaines. at p. 194, ftn 1.

7)   Where text, context and legislative history provide no assistance, Courts must turn to maxims of statutory construction. at p. 194.

Filed under: uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!