# Long v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · July 30, 2003 · 189 Or. App. 56

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6945137

## Case

- **Full name:** STEVEN JON LONG v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** July 30, 2003
- **Citations:** 189 Or. App. 56; 73 P.3d 934; 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 999
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Edmonds
- **Judges:** Armstrong, Edmonds, Kistler
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6945137

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that a probationer may be guided as to the meaning of a condition by the further explanation or instruction from his probation officer

## Opinion text

EDMONDS, P. J.,
concurring.
I agree with the majority s opinion that we are bound by this court’s decision in V. L. Y. v. Board of Parole, 188 Or App 617 , 72 P3d 993 (2003). I therefore join with the majority opinion. However, I write separately to note that the effect of this court’s majority opinion in V. L. Y. is to reject petitioner’s arguments that he is entitled to a predetermination hearing in the event that the board determines that the facts that it *64 relies on to designate him as a predatory sex offender are derived from his criminal history. In other words, it is possible that on remand the board, under our holding in V. L. Y., could rely on facts that, under its rules, would effectively prohibit petitioner from offering any evidence to demonstrate that he currently does not exhibit characteristics showing a tendency to victimize or injure others. 1 As I explained in my dissent in V. L.Y.,1 believe that the board’s rule that permits it to avoid making a subjective determination of whether petitioner currently exhibits characteristics showing a tendency to victimize or injure others exceeds the scope of authority granted to the board by the legislature to determine by rule the criteria for predatory sex offender status. 189 Or App at 641-42 (Edmonds, J., dissenting).
Armstrong, J., joins in this concurrence.
ORS 181.585(1) provides, in part, that
“a person is a predatory sex offender if the person exhibits characteristics showing a tendency to victimize or injure others and has been convicted of a sex crime listed in ORS 181.594(2)(a) to (d), has been convicted of attempting to commit one of those crimes or has been found guilty except for insanity of one of those crimes.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6945137. Public record. Not legal advice.