Laserfiche WebLink
presence of an officer. I think, unintentionally, this bill opens the door for surreptitious <br />recording of police in any situation. There is also not a limitation that the person <br />recording must be in a lawful place and acting lawfully. This would open up the subject <br />recording being able to insert themselves in an arrest situation in such a way as to <br />interfere, but having a defense of "recording" and "open government." Current case law <br />allows subjects to record the police when they are conducting business in a public place. <br />This seems a much more reasonable effort and I would monitor this bill for that kind of <br />language. This would be a difficult opposing position to take because of the public <br />perception that we don't want to place. Our officers under the scrutiny of recording. Not <br />the case, just need to clarify the situation. The prohibition of distributing or showing the <br />video if it's been edited is a good step at the limitations. <br /> <br /> <br />HB 3035 <br /> <br />Relating Clause: Relating to construction of statutes. <br /> <br />Title: Provides that statute may not be construed to create statutory cause of action for person <br />who suffers injury, death or damage by reason of statute’s violation unless Legislative <br />Assembly has by law specifically authorized civil action. <br /> <br />Sponsored by: By Representatives OLSON, SCHAUFLER <br /> <br />URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb3000.dir/hb3035.intro.pdf <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Jerry Lidz CS-CMO-ATTY 2/8/2011 -- Monitor <br /> <br />Comments: The reason for this short bill is not clear to me, other than its apparent purpose to limit the <br />situations in which someone can be liable for injuries caused by the person's violation of <br />a statute. It "feels" like a response to a recent court decision, but I didn't find a relevant <br />court decision that would prompt this bill. I recommend monitoring it because it has a <br />broad relating clause and because amendments, if any, may tell us more about its <br />rationale and intended effect. <br /> <br /> <br />HB 3054 <br /> <br />Relating Clause: Relating to studded tires. <br /> <br />Title: Imposes fee on retail sale of studded tires and on installation of studs in tires. <br /> <br />Sponsored by: By Representatives HUNT, BEYER; Representative GREENLICK <br /> <br />URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb3000.dir/hb3054.intro.pdf <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Eric Jones PW-ADM 2/10/2011 Pri 3 Support <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br /> <br />