Background
Defendant was issued a six-hour exclusion order prohibiting him from entering or remaining on any Tri-Met (Portland’s public transit authority) property. Shortly after receiving this order, he reentered the Gresham Transit Center. The state charged him with two counts of interfering with public transportation under ORS 166.116(1)(a). A jury acquitted him of Count 1 but convicted him of Count 2. On appeal, defendant challenged the sufficiency of evidence proving he had entered a “public transit station.”
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Under ORS 166.116(3)(c), a “public transit station” broadly includes all facilities, structures, lands and rights of way owned, leased, held or used for providing public transportation services. Defendant argued the evidence was legally insufficient to prove he entered such a station, but the court disagreed.
Video evidence, still photographs, and testimony from a Tri-Met security supervisor established that defendant stood on a sidewalk with bus shelters where a bus subsequently pulled up to stop. Additionally, the video showed defendant walking across a diagonal road clearly used by buses to enter and exit the transit center. From this evidence, a rational jury could find that defendant was in or on a transit center and that it constituted Tri-Met property covered by the exclusion order. The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
Key Takeaways
- “Public transit station” includes bus shelters, sidewalks, and roads used by transit vehicles, not limited to formal station buildings.
- Video evidence combined with witness testimony about transit operations can establish that a location is a public transit station for criminal law purposes.
- Exclusion orders from transit property can apply to wide areas beyond traditional station structures.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that Oregon’s public transportation interference statute protects a broad range of transit-related areas. For Tri-Met and similar transit authorities, exclusion orders can effectively cover sidewalks, bus shelters, and bus roads—not merely indoor station buildings. This provides transit police and security with broader legal tools to enforce trespassing restrictions.
For defendants, the ruling illustrates the importance of timely preservation and specific framing of legal insufficiency challenges at trial. However, where video and testimony establish that a person was near bus shelters where service vehicles actively stopped or crossed roads used by buses, courts will find sufficient evidence of entry into a public transit station.