STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT MATTHEW DICKEY, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant was a passenger on a MAX train when a TriMet fare inspector, Coryell, asked him for proof that he had paid the fare, which defendant could not provide.

Defendant also did not present proof of his identity at that time. Rather, when Coryell asked defendant for his name, he began to provide one name before "correct[ing] himself" and giving another. That caused Coryell to suspect that defendant had given him a false name, and he contacted Portland Police Officer Helfrich to assist him with establishing defendant's true identity.

At trial, the state conceded that, as a fare inspector, Coryell was not a "peace officer" for purposes of the false-information statute, and the trial court instructed the jury accordingly. Helfrich testified, however, that he too had authority to issue violation citations under ORS 153.042

Applying ORS 162.385(1)(a) and ORS 153.042(1) as we understand them, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendant's MJOA. First, as noted, the state does not dispute that it must establish as an element of its case that defendant was being issued a citation "under authority of * * * ORS chapter 153." See ORS 162.385(1)(a) (establishing that requirement

 he did not observe conduct constituting a violation; it necessarily follows that ORS 153.042(1) did not authorize him to issue a citation to defendant, and further that he was therefore not "issuing or serving [defendant] a citation under authority of * * * ORS chapter 153" within the meaning of ORS 162.385(1)(a). The trial court erred in concluding otherwise.

Reversed.

STATE VS DICKEY (trimet)