Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM C. DAMERON, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1990-04-04
Citations: 101 Or. App. 237
Docket Number: D881992M; CA A60258
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM C. DAMERON, Appellant.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge,and Newman and Deits, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 101
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 5,
reversed April 4,
reconsideration denied May 30, petition for review pending 1990
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM C. DAMERON, Appellant.
(D881992M; CA A60258)
789 P2d 707
Steven L. Price, Hillsboro, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Rives Kistler, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Katherine H. Waldo, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge,and Newman and Deits, Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals his conviction for criminal trespass in the second degree. ORS 164.245. He was gathering signatures on an initiative petition at the main entrance to the Raleigh Hills Fred Meyer store. He was asked to leave by an employee of the store and, when he refused, he was arrested for trespassing. He raised the defense that he had a constitutional right to be on the premises for the purpose of collecting signatures and that, therefore, the order for him to leave was not lawful under Article I, section 8, and Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution.
This case is not distinguishable from State v. Cargill, 100 Or App 336, 786 P2d 208 (1990). Defendant established that he was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity, and the court erred in ruling that the order for defendant to leave the premises was lawful.
Reversed.