Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Threats To Officials topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would create crime for threats motivated by official duties, lawmakers told
Summary
Senate Bill 473A would create a new offense for knowingly conveying threats to public officials motivated by their official duties; sponsors and municipal groups said officials face mounting threats, while committee members asked about overlap with existing crimes and about who the statute should protect.
The House Committee on Judiciary heard April 23 from sponsors and municipal representatives on Senate Bill 473A, a measure that would create the crime of threatening a public official when a communication knowingly conveys a threat that instills fear of imminent serious physical injury and is motivated by the recipient’s public office or duties.
Senator Anthony Broadbent, who presented the bill, said it is a response to a growing national and local trend of threats against public servants. He described the measure as a narrowly tailored statutory gap‑filler that preserves free political expression while addressing violent threats motivated by an official’s role. "We’re witnessing a troubling national and local trend of continued threats against public officials," he said and cited National League of Cities findings on harassment of local officials.
Municipal representatives including the League of Oregon Cities and the city of Eugene offered support. Scott Winkles of the League of Oregon Cities said members reported threats severe enough to make officials fear for themselves and their families and cited an example in which a person produced a rock while threatening to "stone" an official; the presence of the object, he said, changed the likely legal analysis. "We believe that this bill is a reasonable step forward to criminalize that conduct," Winkles testified.
Committee members focused on statutory scope and overlap with existing offenses such as menacing, harassment, coercion and stalking, and on which public servants should be covered. Representative Chotzin asked whether the bill is intended to criminalize conduct not otherwise covered; Senator Broadbent said the bill aims to address conduct that does not neatly fit within current statutes. Several lawmakers raised questions about whether public defenders and other court personnel should be explicitly included; Maylee Browning of OCDLA flagged that public defenders were not explicitly listed and urged clarifying language to ensure public defenders who are state‑funded are covered.
The sponsor said the bill passed the Senate with broad support (recorded in the sponsor summary as 29 ayes and 1 excused) and that language was crafted to balance safety and First Amendment concerns.
Why it matters: municipalities and local officials testified the incidence and severity of threats has increased and that a narrowly drawn new statute could provide prosecutors and courts a tool to address threats motivated by officials’ duties without chilling protected political speech.
Next steps: testimony closed and committee discussion continued on technical drafting and the scope of who is a protected "public official," including whether to explicitly include public defenders and court staff.
