Court Opinion

ID: 9499725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:56:19.641383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:41.667191
License: Public Domain

BEA, Circuit Judge, with whom KLEINFELD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges,
join, dissenting:
The Supreme Court, as recently as April 18, 2007, has explained in clear terms the reason burglary is included as a predicate offense in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii):
The main risk of burglary arises not from the simple physical act of wrongfully entering onto another’s property, but rather from the possibility of a face-to-face confrontation between the burglar, and a third party — whether an occupant, a police officer, or a bystander— who comes to investigate.
James v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1586, 1594, 167 L.Ed.2d 532 (2007).
“Congress thought that certain general categories of property crimes — namely burglary, arson, extortion, and the use of explosives — so often presented a risk of injury to persons, or were so often committed by career criminals, that they should be included in the enhancement statute.... ”
Id. at 1592 (emphasis added) (quoting Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 597, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990)).
Congress singled out burglary (as opposed to other frequently committed property crimes such as larceny and auto theft) for inclusion as a predicate offense ... because of its inherent potential harm to persons.... There never was any proposal to limit the predicate offense to some special subclass of burglaries that might be especially dangerous, such as those where the offender is armed, or the building is occupied, or the crime occurs at night.
Taylor, 495 U.S. at 588, 110 S.Ct. 2143.
[The] purpose of [18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) ] was to “add State and Federal crimes against the property such as burglary, arson, extortion, use of explosives and similar crimes as predicate offenses where the conduct involved presents a serious risk of injury to a person.”
James, 127 S.Ct. at 1592-93 (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 99-849, p.3 (1986)). The Supreme Court is not trying to tell us something. I submit it has: generic burglary includes felonious entries into buildings and “other structure^]” suitable for human occupation wherein a threat of violence is likely to occur. Taylor, 495 U.S. at 598, 110 S.Ct. 2143.
Notwithstanding these clear statements about the reason ACCA includes burglary as a predicate offense, and the Supreme Court’s plain attempt in Taylor to define generic burglary broadly to give effect to congressional intent, today the majority returns our treatment of Oregon’s burglary statute under ACCA to pre-Taylor status by overruling United States v. Cunningham, 911 F.2d 361 (9th Cir.1990). Taylor meant to broaden the definition of burglary to give effect to Congress’s goals of punishing repeat criminals who commit violent crimes that inherently pose harm to persons. Oregon, like the Court in Taylor, defined burglary beyond its com*853mon law roots1 to punish criminals who commit crimes that involve a threat of harm to persons that arise at locations prevalent now, but unknown at the common law. Because the Oregon burglary statute when properly read comports with the generic definition in Taylor, I respectfully dissent.
I.
As explained above, the reason Congress included burglary as a predicate offense in ACCA is clear: “Congress singled out burglary (as opposed to other frequently committed property crimes such as larceny and auto theft) for inclusion as a predicate offense ... because of its inherent potential harm to persons.” Taylor, 495 U.S. at 588, 110 S.Ct. 2143. With this purpose in mind, the Supreme Court defined generic burglary that qualified as a predicate offense under ACCA as “an unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime.” 495 U.S. at 598, 110 S.Ct. 2143. As we have previously recognized, the Court settled upon this broad definition to meet Congress’s intent to broaden the category of burglary offenses that qualified as predicate offenses under ACCA. United States v. Sweeten, 933 F.2d 765, 771 (9th Cir.1991). Notably, the Court rejected the common law definition of burglary because “the contemporary understanding of burglary has diverged a long way from its common law roots,” and, therefore, the common law definition would ill serve the enhancement purposes of ACCA. Taylor, 495 U.S. at 593, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court explained:
The common-law definition does not require that the offender be armed or that the dwelling be occupied at the time of the crime. An armed burglary of an occupied commercial building, in the daytime, would seem to pose a far greater risk of harm to persons than an unarmed nocturnal breaking and entering of an unoccupied house. It seems unlikely that Congress would have considered the latter, but not the former, to be a “violent felony” counting towards a sentence enhancement.
Id. at 594,110 S.Ct. 2143.
While not specifically defining what it meant by “building or other structure,” the Court provided some explanation of how to apply its generic definition. For instance, the Court recognized that Missouri’s second-degree burglary statute defined burglary more broadly than the generic definition because it included “breaking and entering’ any booth or tent, or any boat or vessel, or railroad car.’ ” Id. at 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (emphases added) (quoting Mo.Rev.Stat. § 560.070 (1969) (repealed)). Such locations do not constitute a “building or structure” as used in Taylor’s definition of burglary. Recognizing, however, that states’ definitions of burglary would vary, the Court instructed that “where the generic definition has been adopted, with minor variations in terminology, then the trial court need find only that the state statute corresponds in substance to the generic meaning of burglary.” Id. (emphasis added). It is the substance of the burglary statute, not the technical terminology employed, with which we should concern ourselves. The majority inverts this instruction, employing, I fear, form over substance in evaluating Oregon’s burglary statute.
*854II.
At first blush, it would appear the majority’s holding is bullet-proof: Taylor held a burglary statute including places such as automobiles was broader than the generic burglary definition it adopted, and Oregon defines building in its burglary statute to include places such as vehicles. Not so fast. Neglecting to analyze all of the state statute — addressing, rather, merely some of its words — the majority overlooks, that Oregon has carefully limited what types of vehicles, aircraft, boats, and other structures qualify as buildings. Only those structures “adapted” in such a way that people can fit and are likely to be found therein qualify as a “building.”
A person commits second degree burglary in Oregon “if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein.” Or.Rev. Stat. § 164.215(1). “ ‘Building,’ in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes any booth, vehicle, boat, aircraft or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein.” Or.Rev.Stat. § 164.205(1). Because the definition of “building” includes non-building locations such as “vehicle,” the majority reasons the definition is akin to the Missouri statute found overbroad in Taylor. Maj. Op. at 850-51.
But Oregon’s definition of “building” is significantly different than the Missouri statute in Taylor because in Oregon, not all “booth[s], vehiele[s], boat[s], [or] aircraft” constitute a “building” for purposes of a burglary conviction. Indeed, only those structures “adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein ” can be a “building” for purposes of burglary. Or.Rev.Stat. § 164.205(1) (emphases added). Oregon courts have explained why the drafters of Oregon’s burglary statute included the adaptation clause:
The Commentary to the Oregon Criminal Code explains that the purpose of this expansive definition of building is “to include those structures and vehicles which typically contain human beings for extended periods of time, in accordance with the original and basic rationale of the crime: protection against invasion of premises likely to terrorize occupants.”
State v. Scott, 38 Or.App. 465, 590 P.2d 743, 744 (1979) (emphasis added) (quoting Commentary, Proposed Oregon Criminal Code, § 135 p. 143 (1970)); see also Timothy v. State, 90 P.3d 177, 179-80 (Alaska Ct.App.2004) (“The Oregon drafters did not say that they intended to include all vehicles within the definition of ‘building.’ Rather, they declared that their intention was to include those ... vehicles which typically contain human beings for extended periods of time.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (omission in the original)).
This limitation is significant for it illustrates that Oregon has statutorily defined burglary to effect burglary’s original purpose — to wit, protection of people. In so doing, the burglary statute distinguishes between ordinary vehicles and vehicles wherein people are likely to be found, with only the latter constituting a “building” under the burglary statute. In State v. Scott, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that a railroad boxcar, while certainly a type of vehicle, is not a “building” under Oregon burglary law because there was no evidence it had been adapted to accommodate people or to carry on business therein. 590 P.2d at 744. While the boxcar was certainly a structure “designed for the storage of goods during their transportation,” it had not been adapted such that people were likely to be found therein; consequently, it could not serve as the situs of burglary. Id.
*855State v. Nollen, 196 Or.App. 141, 100 P.3d 788 (2004), confirms that vehicles, booths, boats and aircraft are considered “buildings” only when adapted to be structures wherein people are likely to be found. There, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that a semi-truck trailer used to collect donated goods had been adapted for carrying on business therein because the trailer had been unhooked from the truck, placed at a permanent donation collection station marked by permanent signs, and supplied with stairs to allow people to enter the trailer. Id. at 788-89. Importantly, the court noted that no debate existed whether the trailer was a “vehicle”; the debate, rather, focused solely on whether the trailer had been adapted sufficiently to constitute a “building” under the burglary statute. Id. at 789. The trailer’s location at a permanent collection station with stairs leading into the trailer sufficed to bring the trailer within the definition of “building” because these adaptations made it likely that people were to be found in the trailer donating goods. Hence a burglary would likely pose a threat of harm to persons.
Because Oregon has limited its seemingly expansive definition of building to structures wherein people are likely to be found, second degree burglary in Oregon by definition involves an inherent risk of violence to persons. Breaking and entering an ordinary vehicle to commit a crime therein likely does not pose such a risk, hence the overbroad Missouri statute in Taylor. But breaking and entering a vehicle adapted for overnight accommodation of persons, such as a Recreational Vehicle (“RV”), or a vehicle adapted for carrying on business therein, such as the trailer in Nollen, inherently poses a risk of violence to persons.2 While a vehicle, boat, or aircraft adapted to accommodate sleeping or to conduct business therein might not be a “building” under the “ordinary meaning” of building, Or.Rev.Stat. § 164.205(1), they are certainly “structures” contemplated in Taylor, 495 U.S. at 598, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (defining generic burglary as “an unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime” (emphasis added)).3 Given that “[a] state court’s interpretation of a statute is binding in determining whether the elements of generic burglary are present,” United States v. Tighe, 266 F.3d 1187, 1196 (9th Cir.2001), it is clear the Oregon statute as applied in Scott and Nollen is not equivalent to the Missouri statute found overbroad in Taylor.
There is no need to show that a threat of harm to persons must always exist to hold Oregon’s second degree burglary statute qualifies as a crime of violence under ACCA categorically. In James, the Supreme Court reiterated what it first made clear in Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 815, 822, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007): “We do not view [the Taylor *856categorical] approach as requiring that every conceivable factual offense covered by a statute must necessarily present a serious potential risk of injury before the offense can be deemed a violent felony.” 127 S.Ct. at 1597. The Court explained that “the proper inquiry is whether the conduct encompassed by the elements of the offense, in the ordinary case, present a serious potential risk of injury to another.” Id. (emphasis added). Under the Oregon second degree burglary statute, the ordinary burglary case certainly presents a risk of injury to another because burglary is defined to require potential threats of harm to persons in mind.4 I would therefore hold that Oregon’s second degree burglary statute is categorically a crime of violence under Taylor's definition of burglary and, by so holding, re-affirm our holding in Cunningham.

III.

The majority admits that a “vehicle or boat that has been adapted for accommodation may qualify as a building in certain circumstances,” but holds that they do not so qualify categorically. Maj. Op. at 851 n. 5. The majority offers no explanation why this is the case, other than to cite to a dictionary that excludes from the definition of building “ ‘structures not intended for use in one place (as boats or trailers) even though subject to occupancy.’ ” Id. (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary Unabridged 292 (1993)). The majority’s reasoning is logically unsound and flies in the face of a number of well-reasoned prior circuit decisions.
At least two problems are obvious with the majority’s reliance on this dictionary definition. First, there is no support for the proposition that the Supreme Court in Taylor defined burglary as limited only to structures intended for use in one place. Indeed, relying on this static, dictionary definition ignores Taylors, and James’s unambiguous explanations that ACCA includes burglary because it is a crime that presents a risk of harm to persons and is accordingly a crime of violence. To paraphrase the Court in Taylor, a burglary of an occupied RV poses a much greater risk of harm to persons than a burglary of an abandoned warehouse. “It seems unlikely that Congress would have considered the latter, but not the former, to be a ‘violent felony’ counting towards a sentence enhancement” merely because the structure at issue in the latter is intended for use in one place. Taylor, 495 U.S. at 594, 110 S.Ct. 2143.5
Second, as explained above, Taylor defined burglary to include an unlawful entry into “a building or other structure .... ” *857Id. at 598, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (emphasis added). The majority mistakenly bases its analysis on the assertion that all non-buildings are excluded in the Taylor definition. This assertion simply ignores Taylor’s, express inclusion of “other structure^]” in its burglary definition.6 Indeed, the Taylor generic definition of burglary uses the same four words as does the Oregon statutory definition of “building”: “Building ... or other structure .... ” Or.Rev.Stat. § 164.205(1) (emphasis added). The majority opinion addresses its own concept of what “building” means, but does not address what “other structure” means in the Taylor generic definition of burglary — other than to read “other structure” out of the Court’s generic burglary definition7 — and in the Oregon statute.
The majority’s approach is also at odds with our well-reasoned precedent. In Siveeten, we applied the Supreme Court’s holding in Taylor to a Texas burglary stat*858ute that defined habitation to include vehicles. In holding that the Texas statute was not overbroad, we carefully explained that the Texas statute did “not define ‘vehicles’ to be synonymous with ‘automobiles’ as the latter term was generically used by the Supreme Court in Taylor” because the Texas statute limited vehicles to those “ ‘adapted for the overnight accommodation of personsSweeten, 933 F.2d at 770 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.01 (Vernon 1974)). I include here relevant portions of our holding in Sweeten to illustrate further the majority’s misapprehension of ACCA and Taylor:
As the Taylor Court itself emphasized, the recent legislative history of section 924(e) indisputably demonstrates a congressional intent to broaden the category of qualifying burglaries....
Given Congress’s intent to define “burglary” broadly, it is implausible to suggest that Sweeten’s “burglary of a habitation,” as defined under the Texas statute, is not a burglary within the meaning of section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). The burglary of a mobile home or other “vehicle adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons” is not analogous to the theft of an automobile or to the other property crimes whose relative lack of severity the Taylor Court (and presumably Congress) meant to exclude from its generic definition. Rather, it is analogous to the burglary of a building or house. Indeed, the burglary of a mobile home or camper is often likely to pose a greater risk of violence to the occupant or owner than the burglary of a building or house because it is more difficult for the burglar to enter or escape unnoticed. In light of these considerations, we hold that the “burglary of a habitation,” as defined to mean the burglary of “a structure or vehicle adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons,” constitutes the burglary of a “structure” within the generic definition of Taylor and thus within the meaning of section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Id. at 771.
With nothing more than a wink and a nod, the majority overrules Sweeten. Maj. Op. at 851 n. 5. The majority offers no justification for so doing, other than to fall back on its narrow definition of “building or structure,” thereby employing form over substance. Maj. Op. at 851 n. 5. Sweeten, on the other hand, relied on the Supreme Court’s explanation of the purpose of burglary’s inclusion in ACCA and held that where the substance of a state burglary statute is the same as the substance of generic burglary, the state statute qualifies as a predicate offense under ACCA. See Taylor, 495 U.S. at 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (“[Wjhere the generic definition has been adopted, with minor variations in terminology, then the trial court need find only that the state statute corresponds in substance to the generic meaning of burglary.” (emphasis added)).
The majority also overrules the portion of United States v. Reina-Rodriguez, 468 F.3d 1147, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2006), wherein we held that Utah’s burglary statute qualified categorically as generic burglary under ACCA. There, appellant argued that Utah’s inclusion of “watercraft” and “aircraft” within the definition of “building” resulted in a burglary statute broader than generic burglary in Taylor. We disagreed for the same reasons we disagreed in Sweeten. I again include relevant portions of our holding to highlight the errors in the majority’s reasoning:
[Ajlthough Utah’s burglary statute defines “building” more broadly than its federal meaning, it limits “dwelling” to “a building which is usually occupied by *859a person lodging therein at night....” Thus, entering or remaining in an ordinary unoccupied car would not qualify as burglary of a dwelling under the statute, and the Supreme Court’s concern in Taylor would not apply.
The Supreme Court has also explained that Congress categorized burglary as a crime of violence because of its inherent potential harm to persons.
... These precise factors are present where a structure is adapted for sleeping or lodging....
Moreover, Utah courts have held that Utah’s second degree burglary [of a dwelling] statute is intended to protect people while in places where they are likely to be living and sleeping overnight. ...
We conclude that Utah’s definition of “dwelling” is sufficiently restricted by means of its adaptation requirement to fall within the strictures set forth in Taylor ....
Id. at 1156-57 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (second alteration in the original). Rather than stubbornly applying form over substance based on a narrow dictionary definition, in Reina-Rodriguez we looked to congressional intent in categorizing burglary as a crime of violence in ACCA, Taylor’s rationale underscoring its generic burglary definition, prior circuit law, and state decisions interpreting the burglary statute.8
In contrast to the majority’s decision today, our holdings in Sweeten and Reinar-Rodriguez were careful, thoughtful, and in accord with Taylor and ACCA. The Court’s recent decision in James v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1586, 167 L.Ed.2d 532 (2007), compellingly reinforces our holdings in these cases and resolves any lingering ambiguities concerning Taylor’s less-than-clear generic burglary definition. Rather than overruling well-reasoned, proper decisions such as Sweeten and Reina-Rodriguez on the basis of a dictionary definition, I would continue to apply the generic definition of burglary as intended by Congress and the Supreme Court in Taylor.
* * *
In sum, I would hold that Oregon’s burglary statute categorically qualifies as a burglary offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) as burglary is defined in Taylor, and affirm the district court’s sentence enhancement. While defining “building” to include structures other than buildings, Oregon’s burglary statute limits those structures to ones in which people are likely to be present. The scope of the Oregon statute is thus no broader than *860generic burglary, which includes “building or other structures” where there exists a threat of harm to persons. Taylor, 495 U.S. at 598, 110 S.Ct. 2143.
This is a straightforward case, easily decided based on our and Supreme Court precedent. We erred first in taking this simple case en banc sua sponte and today compound that error by overruling prior, well-reasoned case law with no reason for doing so. The greatest mistake, however, lies in our removing as a predicate offense under ACC A a state burglary statute that comports precisely with congressional purposes in enacting ACCA and with the Supreme Court’s generic burglary definition in Taylor. I cannot join in such a deviation from Supreme Court and prior circuit precedent. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

. As noted in Taylor, the common law definition of burglary was restricted to "a breaking and entering of a dwelling at night, with intent to commit a felony....” 495 U.S. at 592, 110 S.Ct. 2143.

. The majority criticizes this analysis as wrongly focusing on the use rather than the nature of a structure. Maj. Op. at 851 n. 5. Not so. The analysis quite properly focuses on both the nature and use of the structure because there is no difference between the two. The nature of a home or an RV is to provide shelter to persons; the use of a home or an RV is to provide shelter to persons. The nature of the trailer in Nollen, once adapted, was to provide a structure for carrying on business therein; the use, of course, was to carry on business in the trailer. The majority’s attempted creation of a difference between “nature” and "use” is itself an abstraction, which does not cure the shortcomings of the majority's analysis.

. “Structure” is defined as "Something built or constructed, as a building or dam....” Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged 1806 (2d ed.1979). Vehicles, booths, boats, and aircraft certainly fall under this definition.

. Compare Scott, 590 P.2d at 743-44, with Nollen, 100 P.3d at 788-89, supra.

. The majority characterizes references to congressional intent as "policy argument” and therefore irrelevant to the decision. Maj. Op. at 849. Far from being a policy argument, such references recognize that the Supreme Court in Taylor meant to broaden the definition of burglary to effect Congress’s intent of punishing criminals who commit crimes that pose threats of harm to persons. It is the majority, not Taylor, which narrowly restricts generic burglary to fixed buildings and ignores burglaries that present harm to persons.
If there were any lingering doubt regarding how the Supreme Court intended the generic burglary definition in Taylor to be applied, James has removed all doubt. There, in explaining application of the categorical approach for crimes listed under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court stated: "[Tjhe proper inquiry is whether the conduct encompassed by the elements of the offense, in the ordinary case, presents a serious potential risk of injury to another." James, 127 S.Ct. at 1597 (emphasis added). As shown, in Oregon the ordinary case of second-degree burglary by definition presents such a risk.

. Ironically, the majority's chosen definition of "building” labels boats and trailers as "structures.” Maj. Op. at 848 n. 2. Hence, if this dictionary definition were the final say on our application of Taylor, boats and trailers would by necessity be included in Taylor's generic definition because they are "structures.” The majority avoids this problem by limiting the generic definition to structures intended for use in one place. It would come as a surprise to George M. Pullman (1831-1897) to learn that his palatial Pullman cars would be considered uninhabitable structures because they moved around the country.

. The majority holds that the Court's inclusion of "other structure” merely served to "encapsulate[ ] the common understanding of the word 'building.' ” Maj. Op. at 848. This understanding, the majority conveniently asserts, is that contained in the dictionary definition the majority has chosen — namely "a structure designed for occupancy that is intended for use in one place.” Maj. Op. at 848. The majority does not point to one citation in Taylor where the Supreme Court adopts a similar, narrow definition. This comes as no surprise because there is no such citation in Taylor.
Taylor's citations to Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law § 8.13 (1986), offer no support for the majority’s narrow definition of "building or structure” that reads out "structure.” LaFave indeed explains that burglary "statutes today typically use a much broader term [than dwelling], such as 'building or structure....” Wayne R. LaFave, 3 Substantive Criminal Law § 21.1(c) (2d ed.2003). The statutes to which LaFave cites which include "structure” are revealing because, contrary to the majority’s assumption, many define structure to include structures intended for use in more than one place. Id. § 21.1(c) n. 85. For example, Ariz. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-1506 includes a "nonresidential structure,” and "[t]he word ‘structure' includes any vehicle.” State v. Harris, 134 Ariz. 287, 655 P.2d 1339, 1340 (App.1982). Ark.Code Ann. § 5-39-201 includes "a residential occupiable structure,” and Arkansas courts have applied this definition to mobile trailer homes. Julian v. State, 298 Ark. 302, 767 S.W.2d 300, 300-01 (1989). Iowa Code Ann. § 713.1 includes “an occupied structure,” and occupied structure includes vehicles such as delivery trucks. State v. Sylvester, 331 N.W.2d 130, 131-32 (Iowa 1983). Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.110 includes "structure,” and Michigan courts have held a trailer falls within the definition. People v. Walters, 186 Mich.App. 452, 465 N.W.2d 29, 31-32 (1990) (explaining that "permanence is not dispositive of whether a given structure falls within the scope of the statute”).
Although further examples are available, these suffice to show the majority’s assertion that most states define structure to mean buildings intended for use in one place is simply inaccurate. Without this leg to stand on, the majority’s conclusion that by including "other structure,” Taylor meant only to define a fixed building crumbles. The best that can be gathered from LaFave is that while many states include “structures” in their burglary statutes, the states have numerous, varying definitions of what constitutes a "structure.” James resolves any potential confusion as to what Taylor’s inclusion of “other structure” means by reemphasizing that threat of violence to persons in the ordinary case is at the forefront of any categorical analysis of the elements of a state crime included in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). 127 S.Ct. at 1597.

. United States v. Sparks, 265 F.3d 825 (9th Cir.2001), employs the same reasoning as Sweeten and Reina-Rodriguez in analyzing Alaska’s burglary statute. In finding the Alaska burglary statute overbroad based on its inclusion of vehicles adapted for carrying on business, Sparks based its holding on an explanation of why no greater threat to persons existed in vehicles adapted for business than in ordinary vehicles. The Oregon statute at issue here differs in one significant respect from the Alaska statute in Sparks: Oregon’s statute requires adaptation “for carrying on business therein ” Or.Rev.Stat. § 164.205(1) (emphasis added); Alaska’s statute requires only adaptation “for carrying on business." Alaska Stat. § 11.81.900(b)(5).
The significance of “therein” is illustrated under the canon of statutory construction noscitur a sociis, “which counsels that the meaning of an unclear word or phrase should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it.” James, 127 S.Ct. at 1605 (Sca-lia, J., dissenting). When read together with the words “other structures adapted for overnight accommodation or persons,” the term "carrying on business therein” implies that “persons” are doing the carrying on of the business in the "structure.” Or.Rev.Stat. § 164.205(1).