Court Opinion

ID: 9627128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:35:21.302661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:40.105706
License: Public Domain

*264BUTTLER, P. J.,
dissenting in part; concurring in part.
Because I do not agree that the police radio communications were “transmitted for the use of the general public,” I would affirm defendant’s conviction for “obtaining” those communications by recording them. Former ORS 165.540(1)(a). That we may believe the statutory prohibition to be silly, because those communications are available to one who has a scanner or other radio receiver designed to pick up the police radio frequencies, does not mean that the police transmit their communications for the use of the general public. The majority makes that transition with no apparent difficulty; I cannot. The statutory scheme is intended to protect the privacy interest of the people guaranteed by Article I, section 9, see State v. Campbell, 306 Or 157, 759 P2d 1040 (1988), including the privacy rights of the police. It is not the function of judges to select which privacy interest the courts will protect.
The trial court, after listening to the tape recording of the radio communications, found, as a fact, that those communications were not transmitted for use of the general public. Aside from the plain meaning of the statute, we are bound by the trial court’s finding that is supported by the evidence. Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485, 443 P2d 621 (1968).
I concur in the conclusion that defendant violated former ORS 165.540(1)(c).