OAG 81-70.
Case Date | September 24, 1981 |
Court | Oregon |
Oregon Attorney General Opinions
1981.
OAG 81-70.
87OPINION NO. 81-70
[42 Or.
Op. Atty. Gen. 87]No.
8058September 24,
1981Mr. John J.
LobdellPublic Utility Commissioner
FIRST QUESTION PRESENTEDAre there any Oregon statutes which would prohibit the unauthorized
manufacture, sale or use of commercial motor vehicle safety inspection decals
issued by the Public Utility Commissioner (PUC)?ANSWER GIVENYes.SECOND QUESTION PRESENTEDIs it advisable for
the PUC to adopt an administrative rule addressing such matters?ANSWER GIVENYes.THIRD QUESTION PRESENTEDIs it
possible to protect the safety inspection decal by registering it with a
federal agency?ANSWER GIVENYes.FOURTH QUESTION PRESENTEDIs there any action that the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance (CVSA) can take on its own to preclude the necessity for member states
to enact their own statutes or rules?ANSWER
GIVENNo, not at the present time.
DISCUSSION
The State of Oregon is a member of the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance (CVSA). This organiza88tion is comprised of several western states and one Canadian
province. Member states have recently entered into a "Memorandum of
Understanding" relating to commercial motor vehicle safety inspections,
including uniform minimum inspection standards, a common inspection
identification system using decals, and reciprocal recognition of
inspections.
Under ORS 767.455(1), the Public Utility Commissioner is required
to adopt rules:". . . that require common and
contract carriers to:"(c) Use reasonable precautions for safety of operations and
equipment of motor vehicles subject to their operations and control. . .
."The commissioner has adopted rules under this
statute, establishing equipment safety standards. OAR 860-65-010 et
seq. Presumably these rules must be amended or added to in order to
implement the memorandum of understanding.This opinion addresses several questions regarding protection of
the PUC safety inspection decals, assuming they are to be required under the
new rules, from unauthorized duplication, sale, distribution and use. The first
question asks whether there are any Oregon statutes which would prohibit such
conduct.
It is our opinion that Oregon's forgery statutes would cover such
conduct. ORS 165.007 provides:
"(1) A person commits the crime of forgery in the second degree
if, with intent to injure or defraud, he:
"(a) Falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument;
or
"(b) Utters a written instrument which he knows to be
forged.
"(2) Forgery in the second degree is a Class A
misdemeanor."
A "written instrument" is defined as:".
. . any paper, document, instrument or article containing written or printed
matter or the equivalent thereof, whether complete or incomplete, used for the
purpose of reciting, embodying, conveying or recording information or
constituting a symbol or evidence of value, right, or identification, which is
capable of being used to the advantage or disadvantage of some person." ORS
165.002(1).To "falsely make" a written instrument means:". . . to make or draw a complete written instrument in its entirety, or
an incomplete written instrument which purports to be an authentic creation of
its ostensible maker, but which is not, either because the ostensible maker is
fictitious or because, if real, he did not authorize the making or drawing
thereof." ORS 165.002(4).To "utter" means:". . . to issue,
deliver, publish, circulate, disseminate, transfer or tender a written
instrument or other object to another." ORS 165.002(7).The manufacture of forged PUC safety inspection decals would
constitute the offense of forgery under subsection (1)(a) of ORS 165.007. The
sale or distribution of such decals would constitute forgery under ORS
165.007(1)(b).
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial