Oregon law makes it a crime to help someone who has committed a serious felony avoid being caught or punished. This offense is called Hindering Prosecution. Under ORS 162.325, a person commits the crime of hindering prosecution if, with the intent to help someone who has committed a felony avoid apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment (or to help them profit from the crime), they do any of the following:
- “Harbor” or conceal the person
- Warn the person that police are looking for them
- Give the person money, transportation, a weapon, a disguise, or other means to avoid capture
- Use force, intimidation, or deception to stop someone from helping police find the person
- Destroy, hide, or alter physical evidence that could help locate or apprehend the person
- Help the person keep or protect money or property gained from the crime
Does Lying Count?
Oregon’s hindering prosecution statute (ORS 162.325) is not as broad as it sounds. Recent cases have clarified what conduct does not qualify as the crime:
1. Simply lying to police or denying knowledge of a suspect’s location is not enough.
As per State v. Carpenter (2019), false statements or denials do not necessarily satisfy the “harbors or conceals” element. Merely telling officers “I don’t know where he is” or giving misleading verbal information is not enough for a conviction. The lie has to actually make a difference. In State v. Madrigal (2025), the Court of Appeals upheld a conviction where the defendant’s deceptive actions interfered with officers securing an abandoned vehicle that might contain evidence. However, the court emphasized that hindering requires proof that the defendant’s actions stopped or obstructed officers from performing some act that might aid in discovering or apprehending the suspect. Not every deceptive act will meet this threshold.
2. Minor physical obstruction doesn’t count, either.
In State v. Bryant (2024), the Court of Appeals reversed a conviction where the defendant stood in front of officers and stretched out his arms to block them. The court held that “force” under the statute requires more than just physical movements — it generally needs some level of violence or a real risk of physical injury. Simple blocking or standing in the way usually does not qualify.