Legislature(2025 - 2026)DAVIS 106
02/19/2025 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Oregon Drug Policy from the Decriminalization to Recriminalization Oregon Criminal Justice Commission | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 19, 2025
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator Matt Claman, Chair
Senator Jesse Kiehl, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Löki Tobin
Senator Robert Myers
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Andrew Gray, Chair
Representative Chuck Kopp, Vice Chair
Representative Ted Eischeid
Representative Genevieve Mina
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Jubilee Underwood
MEMBERS ABSENT
SENATE JUDICIARY
All members present
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Mia Costello
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): OREGON DRUG POLICY FROM DECRIMINALIZATION TO
RECRIMINALIZATION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
KEN SANCHAGRIN, Executive Director
Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
Oregon State Government
Salem, Oregon
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview on the Oregon drug
policy from decriminalization to recriminalization.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN called the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee to
order at [1:33 p.m.] He said this meeting was originally
scheduled as a joint meeting of the Senate and House Judiciary
Standing Committees; however, the representatives are detained
on the House floor. He said he will reconvene jointly if House
members arrive in time.
Present at the call to order were Senators Stevens, Kiehl,
Myers, and Chair Claman. Senator Tobin arrived immediately
thereafter. He noted the arrival of Representatives Kopp,
Eischeid, Mina, Vance, Underwood, and Chair Gray shortly
thereafter, and announced that the joint meeting officially
began at 1:48 p.m.
^PRESENTATION(S): OREGON DRUG POLICY FROM THE DECRIMINALIZATION
TO RECRIMINALIZATION OREGON CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION
PRESENTATION(S): OREGON DRUG POLICY
FROM
DECRIMINALIZATION TO RECRIMINALIZATION
1:34:24 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced a presentation titled "Oregon Drug Policy
from Decriminalization to Recriminalization" from the Oregon
Criminal Justice Commission.
CHAIR CLAMAN invited Mr. Sanchagrin to put himself on record and
begin his presentation.
1:34:40 PM
SENATOR TOBIN joined the meeting.
1:35:08 PM
KEN SANCHAGRIN, Executive Director, Oregon Criminal Justice
Commission, Oregon State Government, Salem, Oregon, presented an
overview on the Oregon drug policy from decriminalization to
recriminalization. He said the Commission is responsible for
policy analysis and evaluation and the awarding of local public
safety grants. He said the Oregon drug policy has taken a
winding road with a lot of ups and downs over the last seven or
eight years. He said that to understand Oregon's journey, it is
necessary to know some background for context before the state
went through its experiment with decriminalization starting in
2020.
1:36:07 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN moved to slide 2, Drug Decriminalization in
Oregon:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Drug Decriminalization in Oregon
• Legalization of Marijuana in 2015
• Drug Defelonization (HB 2355 2017)
• Drug decriminalization via Ballot Measure 110 in
2020
• Limited legalization of psilocybin in 2020
MR. SANCHAGRIN said drug recriminalization began last year.
The slide showed a Rolling Stone magazine article titled, "Drug
Decriminalization Goes Into Effect in Oregon" dated February 1,
2021. The subheading indicated that Ballot Measure (BM) 110
prioritized drug treatment over police enforcement and would use
cannabis revenue to open new addiction treatment centers across
the state.
1:36:48 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN moved to slide 3, Decriminalization: HB 2355
(2017).
[Original punctuation provided.]
Decriminalization: HB 2355 (2017)
• Prior to 2017, possession of controlled substances
was a C Felony in all* circumstances.
• In HB 2355, an A Misdemeanor was created for
individuals possessing a "user quantity" of
controlled substances who did not have a criminal
record.
• Effects of Defelonization:
• Overall PCS arrests fell by 18 percent
• Misdemeanor convictions rose from >5 percent
annually to 50 percent.
• The number of individuals who became first time
felons due to a PCS conviction also fell
substantially.
• Racial disparities for felony arrests and
convictions fell substantially. These
disparities, however, were merely transferred to
misdemeanor PCS cases.
HB 2355 Framework
Felony
• Subject has a prior felony conviction
• Subject has 2 or more PCS misdemeanor convictions
• Subject is convicted of a commercial drug offense
• Subject possesses more than a user quantity of drugs
Class A Misdemeanor
• Subject possesses a user quantity of controlled
substances
User Quantity
Heroin: =1g LSD: =40 units
MDMA: =1g or 5 pills Psilocybin: =12g
Cocaine: =2g Methadone: =40g
Meth: =2g Oxycodone: =40 pills
1:36:54 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN corrected a typo, stating that prior to 2017
possession of controlled substances in Oregon was a felony in
nearly all circumstances. He said this slide mistakenly listed
possession as a C felony, whereas the offense could have been
charged as a B felony, C felony, or in rare cases a B or C
misdemeanor, depending on the drug's classification under the
national schedule.
MR. SANCHAGRIN explained that HB 2355 created for the first time
a new A misdemeanor classification for possession of a new
amount of drugs called a "user quantity." An individual found
with that "user quantity," absent a prior felony conviction or
prior A misdemeanor convictions for these "user quantity"
possessions, would be charged at the A misdemeanor level. He
said the chart reflects the new user quantity thresholds
established by HB 2355, contrasted with the prior system in
which nearly all offenses were felonies.
MR. SANCHAGRIN reported that over the first few years HB 2355
led to an overall reduction in arrests for possession of
controlled substances. He explained that local law enforcement
often weighed whether it was worth booking someone on the new A
misdemeanor classification since those individuals were
frequently released soon after. Many found it was not quite
worth the effort that the felony level had been in the past.
This contributed to an 18 percent reduction in overall drug
related arrests across the board.
MR. SANCHAGRIN said that within the first year of the passage of
HB 2355, misdemeanor convictions rose significantly. Whereas B
and C misdemeanors had previously made up less than 5 percent of
possession of a controlled substance (PCS) convictions, they
quickly rose to about 50 percent and remained at that level
until passage of Ballot Measure (BM) 110. He saw a reduction in
first-time felons, which was the main motivation behind the
defelonization movement. He also observed a reduction in racial
disparities at the felony level for possession of controlled
substances, though those disparities largely shifted to the
misdemeanor level. In that sense, it was a net positive, but the
disparities persisted.
1:39:57 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN moved to slide 4, Decriminalization: BM 110.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Decriminalization: BM 110
• In 2020, a coalition of local advocacy groups, with
assistance from the Drug Policy Alliance, proposed Ballot
Measure 110.
• Mandated the creation and funding of local addiction
recovery centers and shifted marijuana tax funding to
support these efforts (approximately $100M annually)
• Reclassified certain types of drug possession
• Oregon voters passed Ballot Measure 110:
• Yes: 1,333,268 (58.46%)
• No: 947,314 (41.54%)
MR. SANCHAGRIN drew attention to a picture of the actual ballot
measure on slide 4. He said the summary itself is important and
recommended the committee read through it as members consider
what may have driven voting patterns for the ballot measure.
Slide 4 also showed voting results by county. He said,
unsurprisingly, the greatest levels of support were through the
Portland Metro Area and down the I-5 corridor, which has a
majority of Oregon's population.
1:41:33 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN moved to slide 5, BM 110 Treatment:
[Original punctuation provided.]
BM 110: Treatment
• BM110 led to the creation of Behavioral Health
Resource Networks (BHRNs) in all Oregon Counties
and in each Tribal area.
• The funding infusion was a welcome change given
Oregon's struggles with substance use disorder
(SUD) treatment.
• The rollout of the BHRNs was not without
concerns:
• SOS Audit 2023-03 identified substantial
inefficiencies and funding delays from the
state to local BHRNs.
• Funds in BM 110 were shifted from the Oregon
State Police, the state school fund, and local
governments.
MR. SANCHAGRIN said the funding infusion was a long welcome
change because Oregon had long suffered from a dearth of
substance use disorder (SUD) treatment resources. He said Oregon
was ranked 48 prior to the passage of BM 110 in access to
treatment and is consistently ranked in the top 5 as far as
addiction need, which is a fairly poor combination. He said it
took a few years to get BM 110 treatment funds adequately
flowing out the door to Behavioral Health Resource Networks
(BHRNs). Slide 5 has three diagrams showing the distribution of
funds among a multitude of BHRNs in Washington, Benton, Douglas,
and Multnomah counties.
1:43:08 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN moved to slides 6 and 7, Ballot Measure 110
Framework for Possession Crimes, which shows the framework for
how Oregon's possession laws were reclassified:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Ballot Measure 110 Framework for Possession Crimes
Pre-Nov. 2020 Approach
Felony
Subject has a prior felony conviction
Subject has 2 or more PCS misdemeanor convictions
Subject is convicted of a commercial drug offense
Subject possesses more than a user quantity of drugs
Class A Misdemeanor
Subject possesses a user quantity of controlled
substances
BM 110 Framework
Felony
Subject is convicted of a commercial drug offense
Subject possesses a substantial quantity of drugs
Class A Misdemeanor
Subject possesses more than a user quantity of drugs
but less than a substantial quantity
Class E Violation
Subject possesses a user quantity of controlled
substances
User Quantity Substantial Qty
Heroin: =1g Heroin: =5g
MDMA: =1g or 5 pills MDMA: =5g or 25 pills
Cocaine: =2g Cocaine: =10g
Meth: =2g Meth: =10g
LSD: =40 units LSD: =200 units
Psilocybin: =12g Psilocybin: =60g
Methadone: =40g
Oxycodone: =40 pills
Fentanyl: =1g or 5 units Fentanyl: =5g or 25
units
1:43:26 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN said Oregon retained the Class A misdemeanor
classification for possession and following passage of BM 110,
created a new Class E violation. He noted there had never been
an offense in Oregon law at so low a level before. This new
violation was established specifically for certain types of drug
possession.
MR. SANCHAGRIN explained that under HB 2355, which he refers to
as the pre-November 2020 approach, possession was a felony in
most cases unless the amount was a defined "user quantity" and
the individual had no prior felony record. In these cases, the
crime was treated as a misdemeanor. BM 110 introduced a step
down from each of the prior categories by creating the new Class
E violation, along with a new system of weight-based
classifications. "User quantity" was the lowest level of drug
offense, the Class E violation. He said larger, "substantial
quantities" remained felonies and the amounts in the middle were
Class A misdemeanors. Most individuals possessed the lower
amounts, falling into the new Class E classification.
1:44:56 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN continued reviewing Ballot Measure 110 Framework
for Possession Crimes, slide 7. He discussed its sentencing
impact, focusing on misdemeanor and Class E violation charges:
[Original punctuation provided.]
BM 110 Classifications with Sentencing Impact
Felony Charge Sentence
- Commercial Drug Offense - Crime Category 8
- Possessing a substantial - Crime Category 6
quantity of drugs
Class A Misdemeanor Charge Sentence
- Subject possesses more - Up to 364 days in jail
than a user quantity of a $6,250 fine
drugs but less than a
substantial quantity
Class E Violation Sentence
- Subject possesses a user - Presumptive $100 fine that
quantity of controlled was waived and dismissed if
substances subject took a health
assessment
- If no assessment, judgment
of guilty w/o additional
sanctions
1:45:01 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN explained that in Oregon, any Class A misdemeanor
is punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a $6,250 fine. He
said this would be the charge if a person possessed the middle
amount of drugs. In contrast, the motivation behind the Class E
violation and passage of BM 110 was to pull individuals
possessing user quantities of drugs out of the criminal justice
system almost entirely, and to try to address their needs in the
public health system. He said that essentially the Class E
violation carried a presumptive $100 fine, waived if the person
completed a health assessment within the specified time. The
individual could do an in-person assessment at a local BHRN
center or could call a posted number. He noted that the
presumptive $100 fine was waived if the individual took a health
assessment. If the person failed to complete the assessment or
make the call, the judgment of guilty remained on their record.
However, there were no additional sanctions: no further fines,
and no charge of failure to appear if they missed court. He said
the law attempted to limit the accountability from a criminal
justice perspective for anybody with the E violation.
1:46:42 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN continued on slide 7 and said felony possession
charges continued to depend on drug quantity and whether the
prosecutor could show three indicators from the Commercial Drug
Offense Factors, shown below. If these criteria were proved in
court, the case could be charged as a commercial drug offense
and placed in crime category 8, which typically resulted in
prison. He said this is the most common way possession of
controlled substances led to a prison sentence in Oregon, while
most other cases resulted in probation.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Commercial Drug Offense Factors
Poss $300+ cash Stolen property Dangerous security
Packing materials Drug records Weapon use
Modification of Manu paraphernalia DCS for consideration
structure
PCS >3g heroin, MCS on public land
8g coke/meth,
20 units LSD,
4g/20 pills ecstasy
Slide 7 also pictured Oregon's Felony Grid chart [used for
sentencing].
1:47:41 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN moved to slide 8, BM110 in Oregon:
[Original punctuation provided.]
BM110 in Oregon
• Introduction
• E-Violations between 2021-2024
• Overdose Deaths
MR. SANCHAGRIN said he will discuss what the results looked like
in Oregon post-Ballot Measure 110, noting that causal
connections are difficult to make between BM 110 and the
outcomes Oregon saw in the intervening years from 2020 to 2024.
1:48:01 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN acknowledged the presence of Representative
Underwood and announced that this is officially a joint meeting
of the Senate and House Standing Judiciary Committees.
1:48:25 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN moved to slides 9 - 11, Decriminalization: 2020-
2024:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Decriminalization: 2020-2024
• The establishment causal connections between BM 110
and outcomes is difficult due to the co - occurrence
of the COVID -19 pandemic.
• Implementation Challenges:
• Oregon was not well situated to handle
decriminalization when BM 110 was passed. Prior to
BM 110, Oregon was:
• Top 5 for prevalence of drug use/abuse
• Ranked 48th in treatment capacity/access
• While BM 110 sought to fill the treatment gap through
marijuana taxes, decriminalization occurred well
before funding could flow to local jurisdictions
• The first BHRN grant approval occurred on 4/13/2022,
approximately 17 months after BM 110 passed.
1:49:38 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN continued with the discussion of
Decriminalization: 2020-2024 on slide 10.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Decriminalization: 2020-2024 (continued)
• Unsurprisingly, the number of arrests for PCS fell
substantially post-BM110.
• The issuing of E-Violations for possession, however,
did not even come close to filling the gap.
• Law enforcement buy-in regarding the issuance of
E Violations was highly localized.
1:50:47 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN drew attention to the map of counties on slide
10. He said the number of E violations issued per county
illustrates how differently local police approached the new
system. In some counties, such as Jackson and Josephine shown in
dark blue on the map, law enforcement viewed E violations as a
voter mandate. Officers felt a responsibility to issue them so
communities could understand local drug trends. They were
vigorous in issuing E violations; however, this was unique
across the state in comparison to other counties. He said there
was a lot of variation in how local law enforcement received or
bought in to the E violation approach.
• Only 7 percent of individuals receiving an E-
Violation had verified substance use/abuse
assessment.
• 88 percent of cases involving an E-Violation
resulted in a conviction. The vast majority of
convictions resulted when the individual failed
to appear in court.
• Drug enforcement was also frustrated by changes to
Oregon law regarding drug delivery and
searches/seizures.
Trends in PCS Arrests and E-Violations
PCS Arrests PCS E-Violations
Year Monthly Avg Total Monthly Avg Total
2017 1,335 16,021 -- --
2018 1,157 13,880 -- --
2019 1,245 14,934 -- --
2020 738 8,853 -- --
2021 264 3,163 162 1,783
2022 160 1,915 168 2,020
2023 217 2,635 287 3,444
2024? 417 5,004 344 2,748
- Jan to 31 Aug 2024 (HB 4002 went into effect on 1 Sep 2024)
1:52:32 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN noted that another factor which complicates
assessing outcomes was that drug enforcement overall was
affected by court cases that changed the standard for
prosecuting drug dealing. He said that he did not have time to
talk about this today. He said these particular court case
changes made it more difficult to address the drug use and abuse
in the streets as the number of prosecutions for drug delivery
and manufacturing also fell fairly substantially during this
time.
1:53:03 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN continued with the discussion of
Decriminalization: 2020-2024 on slide 11, stating the
decriminalization and the passage of BM 110 corresponded with an
uptick in overdose deaths:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Decriminalization: 2020-2024 (continued)
• The passage of BM 110 also coincided with the
proliferation of fentanyl on the west coast.
Fentanyl began to overtake heroin in overdose cases
in the months preceding the ballot measure.
• By 2022, with overdose deaths increasing, fentanyl
even overtook methamphetamine as the leading cause
of overdose deaths in Oregon.
A chart on slide 11 depicted the number of unintentional or
undetermined drug overdose deaths from July 2019 to March 2023.
1:53:47 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN moved to slide 12, Drug Recriminalization in
Oregon:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Drug Recriminalization in Oregon
• The threat of a ballot measure
• Legislative response via HB 4002
• Conditional Discharge
• Deflection Program Implementation
• Final System Comparison
The slide showed a newspaper clipping headline, reading "It's
crazy out there: The reasons behind Oregon's deepening drug
crisis. The subheading read "Fueled by fentanyl, the number of
overdose deaths in Oregon has soared since 2019. And while the
surge in overdoses is part of a national problem, the state's
underfunded treatment system is struggling to provide local
solutions."
1:53:52 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN moved to slide 13, Recriminalization: Ballot
Measure:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Recriminalization: Ballot Measure
• In mid-2023, a coalition of policymakers, interested
citizens, and others began to build momentum behind
a ballot measure that would have repealed Measure
110 in whole or in part.
• The coalition gained steam very quickly, raising
approximately $10M to conduct their campaign.
• The appearance of this new ballot initiative began
to motivate the Legislature to begin discussions
around reforming BM 110 and led to the eventual
passage of HB 4002.
The slide pictured an Oregon Capital Chronical article, which
read "Push to change Measure 110 gains momentum and money." It
said a coalition filed ballot initiatives to prohibit hard drug
use in public places and had $700,000 lined up from donors.
1:55:02 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN moved to slide 14, HB 4002: Changes to Drug
Possession:
[Original punctuation provided.]
HB 4002: Changes to Drug Possession
• HB 4002 created a new, unranked, "drug enforcement
misdemeanor" for possession of user amounts of drugs,
replacing the E-Violation.
• Sentencing Structure:
• Courts may impose 180-day jail sentence or an 18-month
probation sentence (which can be extended by
agreement).
• Up to 30 days of structured jail sanctions can be
ordered by the court for violation of probation terms.
• If probation is revoked, the court may impose a 180-
day jail sentence.
• Courts are prohibited from imposing fines or fees for
individuals convicted of the drug enforcement
misdemeanor (DEM).
HB 4002 Framework
Felony
• Subject is convicted of a commercial drug offense
• Subject possesses a substantial quantity of drugs
Class A Misdemeanor
• Subject possesses more than a user quantity of drugs
but less than a "substantial" quantity
Unranked DEM Misdemeanor
• Subject possesses a user quantity of drugs.
1:56:22 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN moved to slide 15, Recriminalization: Deflection
& Conditional Discharge:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Recriminalization: Deflection & Conditional Discharge
• In keeping with the spirit of BM 110, HB 4002 also
sought to bolster and/or create "off ramps" from the
system for folks with SUD needs.
• This includes the new Oregon Behavioral Health
Deflection grant, along with the expansion of the
preexisting conditional discharge program.
1:56:32 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN described the deflection and conditional
discharge flowchart on slide 15. He said the legislature was
receptive to advocates who argued that not everyone using drugs
requires a criminal justice intervention. Some individuals
benefits from alternative approaches, and the legislature sought
to create options for early diversion.
MR. SANCHAGRIN explained that conditional discharge was an
existing program that was strengthened under HB 4002. In this
program, a case is held in abeyance during a probation term. If
the individual successfully completes 12 months, the case is
dismissed and may be expunged.
1:57:20 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN said the legislature also created the Oregon
Behavioral Health Deflection Program, or deflection grant.
Counties were encouraged to set up local deflection programs
that intervene even earlier than conditional discharge. Under
this system, if an officer encounters an individual in
possession of a user quantity of drugs, the officer may, if the
individual wants to, refer the person to a deflection or
stabilization center instead of booking them into jail. This
"light-touch" approach allows individuals to avoid the criminal
justice system almost entirely, depending on local program
design. The approach is noncriminal justice system focused. If,
however, the person possesses more than a user quantity, or does
not choose deflection, the case proceeds through the criminal
justice system where conditional discharge becomes available.
1:58:33 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN moved to slide 16 Recriminalization: Deflection
Implementation. He said the role that the Criminal Justice
Commission plays in this new approach is that it is the funder
of local county deflection programs.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Recriminalization: Deflection Implementation.
• What is deflection?
• Deflection is a "collaborative program between law
enforcement and behavioral health systems that assist
individuals with substance use disorders...to create
community-based pathways to treatment, recovery support
services, housing, case management, and other services."
(HB 4002)
• The Oregon Behavioral Health Deflection grant was funded
with $20,708,200 to be distributed, by formula, to
Oregon's counties and nine federally recognized Tribes.
• 28 counties (representing 94% of Oregon's population)
applied for and received funding to create deflection
programs. As of February 1, 25 are operational and
accepting deflection clients.
1:58:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recognized the presence of Chair Gray and
Representative Vance.
1:59:02 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN continued the discussion on slide 16, stating
that deflection is a collaborative program between law
enforcement and behavioral health designed to create community-
based pathways to treatment and recovery. He reported the
program was funded with $20 million in its first year. Twenty-
eight counties, representing the majority of Oregon's
population, applied for and received funding to establish
deflection programs. As of February 1, 2025, programs are
operational and accepting referrals.
Slide 16 pictured an Oregon map and the following as
deflection counties: Clatsop, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington,
Hood River, Gilliam, Morrow, Umatilla, Union, Tillamook,
Clackamas, Wasco, Yamhill, Polk, Marion, Lincoln, Benton, Linn,
Grant, Baker, Lane, Deschutes, Crook, Harney, Malheur,
Josephine, Jackson, and Klamath.
1:59:35 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN moved to slide 17, Recriminalization: Deflection
Program Examples. He said this slide shows examples of
deflection programs.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Recriminalization: Deflection Program Examples
Grant County ($150,000)
Model: Grant County's program includes both officer
intervention and Mobile Crisis Team response efforts.
Any citations will be held in abeyance if the
individual is eligible for and agrees to enter
deflection.
Eligibility: Individuals who face charges for
possession (possibly including low-level non-person
misdemeanor charges), are eligible for participation.
Those who pose a community safety threat, are on
community or formal court supervision of any type,
have a previous exclusionary conviction, or who have
previously failed a deflection are excluded from the
program.
Completion/Success: Participant success is currently
defined as meeting their treatment plan goals and no
longer needing support to maintain those goals or
having been compliant with treatment recommendations
for four consecutive months since enrollment.
Josephine County ($788,274)
Model: Josephine County's program employs an officer
intervention model the envisions minimal criminal
justice system involvement (i.e., no charges are filed
or held in abeyance). Additionally, Josephine County
utilizes the Grants Pass Sobering Center for available
services, treatment, and referrals.
Eligibility: Josephine County residents who face
charges for PCS and/or other low-level offenses,
individuals on parole or probation (at the discretion
of parole officer), as well as members of the high-
risk population with no criminal activity. Those who
pose a community safety threat, have previously been
deflected, or who have a previous exclusionary
conviction are excluded.
Completion/Success: defined as receipt of a screening
at the sobering center and a clinical ASAM assessment
by a substance use treatment provider.
Yamhill County ($541,450)
Model: Yamhill County employes an officer intervention
model.
Eligibility: Yamhill County residents who face charges
for single-offense PCS and non-victim, low-level
misdemeanor crimes, with criminal charges held in
abeyance. Those on community supervision or with a
previous exclusionary conviction are excluded from
participating in Yamhill County's deflection program.
Completion/Success: The county offers a tiered
completion model, through which participants may
choose between a six-month and 90-day treatment plan
based on desired levels of engagement and
submission(s) of urinalysis.
1:59:42 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN said the exact structure of a deflection program
varies by county. Some counties impose stricter entrance or
success requirements than others, but all focus primarily on
individuals charged with drug enforcement misdemeanors and, in
some cases, other low-level quality-of-life offenses. He said
the main goal of these programs is to connect individuals with
treatment. Program duration also varies, ranging from about one
month to as long as six months, depending on the county.
2:00:26 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN moved to slide 18, Recriminalization: System
Comparisons.
[Original punctuation provided.]
BM 110 PCS Classifications & Sentencing Impact
Felony Charge Sentence
Commercial Drug Offense Crime Category 8
Possessing a substantial Crime Category 6
quantity of drugs
Class A Misdemeanor Charge Sentence
Possession of more than a Up to 364 days in jail
user quantity of drugs but and a $6,250 fine
less than a substantial
quantity
Class E Violation Sentence
Subject possesses a user Presumptive $100 fine
quantity of drugs that was waived and
dismissed if subject
took a health assessment
If no assessment,
judgment of guilty w/o
additional sanctions
HB 4002 PCS Classifications & Sentencing Impact
Felony Charge Sentence
Commercial Drug Offense Crime Category 8
Possessing a substantial Crime Category 6
quantity of drugs
Class A Misdemeanor Charge Sentence
Possession of more than a Up to 364 days in jail
user quantity of drugs but and a $6,250 fine
less than a substantial
quantity
Unranked DEM Misdemeanor Sentence
Subject possesses a user Must offer
quantity of drugs Conditional Discharge
If no CD, then 180 days
in jail or 18 months
probation
Up to 30 days of
structured jail
sanctions
No fines or fees can be
imposed
2:00:28 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN said the charts above compare the sentencing
impacts before and after Ballot Measure 110, as well as under
the current HB 4002 recriminalization legislation. He explained
that felony and Class A misdemeanor provisions remained largely
unchanged, while reforms focused on individuals possessing a
user quantity of drugs. The approach shifted from a presumptive
$100 fine and phone call, where engagement was low, to a system
offering deflection. If deflection is declined, conditional
discharge is offered, though participation is optional.
2:01:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN acknowledged the presence of Representatives Kopp
and Mina.
2:01:32 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN continued discussing slide 18, noting that these
sentencing effects occurred in September 2024 and are still in
the early stages of the process. He said the Oregon Criminal
Justice Commission maintains a public dashboard tracking each
stage of the process, from arrest and deflection to court cases
and convictions.
2:02:20 PM
SENATOR TOBIN referred to slide 18, expressing interest in how
the ballot measure approach compares to comprehensive
legislative policy developed with expert engagement. She noted
that Alaska's ballot measure process may differ from Oregon's
and requested more details about Oregon's process.
2:03:03 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied that this ballot measure was well put
together. Voters see ballot measure summaries in the voters
pamphlet. He explained that everyone in Oregon votes by mail,
receiving both a ballot and a detailed voter pamphlet. He said
the Secretary of State prepares the summary for each ballot
measure, which is typically what most voters read and therefore
draws the most debate. He said about five pages of comprehensive
statutory language changes were included in the pamphlet, but
many voters rely only on the summary.
MR. SANCHAGRIN stated that the ballot measure contained
comprehensive statutory language but also had inadvertent gaps,
such as the omission of fentanyl. The Oregon legislature
addressed these technical issues through the passage of a
technical fix bill, SB 755. He noted that political sentiment at
the time was that the people had spoken, but some technical
corrections were necessary. He said there were some other very
deep technical issues.
MR. SANCHAGRIN said the development of HB 4002, during the 2024
session, was more integrated. He said lawmakers and experts
worked extensively to refine the policy. He said they did not
get everything right and the bill required a technical fix bill.
He expressed his belief, however, that it was more holistic and
comprehensive than the ballot measure.
2:05:33 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked about Class E violations, stating that they
appeared to be treated almost like traffic citations. He asked
whether a Class E violation, followed by a later arrest, could
serve as an aggravating factor for future prosecutions and
convictions.
MR. SANCHAGRIN confirmed that Class E violations were
essentially treated like traffic tickets, though technically
lower than most traffic tickets. He explained that the Class E
violation was newly created in Oregon, and before that, the
state had nothing lower than a Class D violation. He said a
Class E violation would appear in the court record history and
certain data systems, but it could not be used under sentencing
guidelines to elevate a future sentence. He compared it to
traffic citations in Oregon, which do not affect sentencing
levels.
2:06:49 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked whether the same applied to the new drug
misdemeanor, meaning it could not serve as an aggravating
factor.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied that prior misdemeanor drug offenses
could serve as an aggravating factor. He explained that while
those convictions still keep an offender low on the sentencing
grid, they may influence how future cases are treated on the
individual's record.
2:07:17 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to slide 11, which contained a chart on
the number of Oregon overdose deaths from July 2019 to March
2023. He asked how closely the chart's trend lines track with
neighboring states, particularly Washington. He said that during
that time, Alaska saw a two and a half times increase in
overdose deaths.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied that the Oregon tracks most closely to
Washington.
2:07:56 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to slide 10 which showed that 88 percent
of cases involving an E violation resulted in a conviction. He
recalled that the presenter mentioned most of those cases could
have been disposed of with a phone call, but most offenders
opted out of making one. The slide showed that the sentence for
an E violation had a presumptive $100 fine and asked whether any
offenders paid it.
2:08:19 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN expressed his belief that almost nobody paid the
$100 fine. He reiterated that the court could not charge anyone
with failure to appear or impose additional sanctions, which
eliminated the motivation to pay. He said the fine could not be
sent to collections.
2:08:56 PM
SENATOR KIEHL inquired about Oregon's current system. He asked
what the minimum consequence would be for possession of a user
quantity, essentially, the lightest impact on a person's life.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied that would be the deflection option. He
explained that if an individual was found possessing a user
quantity of drugs, an officer could, depending on the county,
take that person directly to a stabilization center. For
example, in Deschutes County, officers may bring individuals to
a 24/7 respite center that provides substance use disorder (SUD)
assessments and related support. He said that as long as the
individual met the requirements of the local deflection program,
they would have no further involvement with the criminal justice
system.
2:10:04 PM
CHAIR GRAY said his inquiry stems from slide 11. His staff
pulled numbers from the Oregon Health Authority, which were
slightly higher than the numbers on slide 11. His office roughly
tracked the number of unintentional opioid deaths from 2019
through the most recent numbers and found about a quadrupling of
unintentional opioid deaths. He sought confirmation that these
numbers align with those in Washington.
MR. SANCHAGRIN answered in the affirmative.
CHAIR GRAY presented a hypothetical thought experiment, asking
whether the outcomes in Oregon might have been different without
as much backlash if fentanyl had not existed and was not
available anywhere.
2:11:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recognized the presence of Representative Eischeid.
2:11:29 PM
MR. SANCHAGRIN clarified that Oregon's trends tracked closely to
Washington, not necessarily in raw numbers, but in percentage
increases. He addressed the thought experiment on fentanyl,
noting that methamphetamine had long been the primary driver of
overdose deaths in Oregon. Fentanyl began appearing in street
drugs and eventually displaced heroin, contributing to the shift
in overdose patterns.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied that many of the same concerns would have
emerged regardless, particularly in the post-COVID era, with
rising houselessness and homelessness. He emphasized that
overdose deaths, combined with the visible increase in public
drug use, fueled public perception. He reiterated that Oregon
had a court case that altered the standard for prosecuting
delivery of controlled substances. This change, together with
visible, unabated open-air drug markets and open-air drug use in
places like downtown Portland, heightened concerns. He expressed
his belief that whether the driver was methamphetamine or
fentanyl may not have made too much of a difference, but
certainly, this is hypothetical, so it is hard to know.
2:13:30 PM
CHAIR GRAY commented that as somebody who has worked in an
emergency department, many meth users are able to consume more
alcohol and opioids without falling asleep. He said this
increases the likelihood that these individuals might ingest
fentanyl or another opioid, even if an individual intends to use
only meth. He remarked that it is difficult to determine which
substance line, on slide 11, belongs where on the overdose chart
since individuals often use multiple substances.
MR. SANCHAGRIN agreed, stating that Oregon sees poly-substance
use in its data as well.
2:14:18 PM
SENATOR TOBIN referred to slide 18, stating the
Recriminalization System Comparisons Chart provides an excellent
comparison of BM 110 and HB 4002 approaches. She said she would
like to explore further what reporting will occur at the
conclusion of the process, how often the legislature will
revisit whether the approach is working, and how success will be
gauged.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied that the statute itself did not build in
much mandatory reporting. He said the legislature had some
concerns that recriminalization would bring about racial
disparities that existed before decriminalization. As a result,
the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission is required to file
annual reports, with the first due in late summer of this year,
analyzing racial disparities.
MR. SANCHAGRIN explained that part of the Commission's mission
is to act as a nonpartisan data exchange and to keep the public
informed about outcomes. He noted that the Commission maintains
dashboards updated weekly, a cadence likely to continue for the
foreseeable future. He has already presented six times on the
data since HB 4002 passed. He said substantial data trends
became visible beginning September 1 and developments are
followed very closely.
2:16:06 PM
SENATOR TOBIN said that it would be enjoyable to hear back in a
year about successes, lessons learned, and any other changes
under consideration. She remarked that this is an interesting
topic.
2:16:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that he is present, in large part, because
he will be presenting to the Criminal Justice Data Analysis
Commission tomorrow, so the House and Senate Judiciary
Committees are effectively getting a free preview. He noted that
even if he could not appear in-person in the future, he was
confident arrangements could be made for him to participate by
video or other means.
2:16:55 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked about the impacts on recidivism rates, not
only for drug offenses but also for misdemeanors and felonies in
general. He asked about the trends which had been observed since
2017 notwithstanding the overlap of Oregon's efforts with the
COVID-19 pandemic, which make comparisons difficult.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied that prior to the ballot measure, Oregon
had seen a slight downward trend in recidivism rates over the
previous decade. After 2017, rates did not change significantly
in connection to defelonization. He said there was a somewhat
sharper decline in recidivism rates post BM 110. One reason was
that possession was a common recidivating offense, and removing
those cases from the cohorts removed a risky population. The
Commission's statistical analysis suggested an expected decline
much larger than what occurred in reality. Projections indicated
a difference of five to seven percentage points, but in
practice, the drop was only about one percentage point.
2:18:54 PM
SENATOR MYERS explained that in Alaska, if a ballot measure is
introduced and the legislature passes a substantially similar
provision, the measure does not appear on the ballot. He asked
whether Oregon follows the same process.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied yes, Oregon operates in a similar way. He
said the legislature can either refer the ballot measure itself
or preempt it through legislation. He said that BM 110 caught
many people by surprise when it was filed, so the legislature
did not have an opportunity to act on it beforehand, partly due
to the legislative schedule.
2:19:48 PM
SENATOR MYERS said it appears the ballot measures might have
been stronger than the bill that ultimately passed. He asked
whether Oregonians are content with the current approach, or
whether there is a likelihood that a ballot measure will return
to reinstate pre-2020 levels.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied that BM 110 caught many by surprise,
leaving little time for the legislature to intervene. He
recalled that public safety colleagues were shocked by its
passage. He explained that, more recently, there were two repeal
ballot measures in circulation, one for full repeal and one for
partial repeal. The backers of those measures agreed to withdraw
them if the legislature acted in a way that they found to be
satisfactory. Because the timing aligned with the short session,
negotiations allowed the legislative process to preempt the
ballot effort.
MR. SANCHAGRIN said public perception was mixed. People were
happy that action was taken, but many are waiting to see results
on the streets. He noted that following the implementation of
HB 4002 on September 1, arrests for possession spiked
immediately, exceeding pre-COVID levels for the entire month. He
attributed a lot of those efforts to locals who intervened in a
space that they had been shut out of over the prior four years.
2:22:30 PM
SENATOR MYERS said HB 4002 created two off-ramps to divert
individuals from the criminal justice path: deflection and
conditional discharge. He asked how many individuals
participated in and completed either of those programs compared
to the number who proceeded through the regular criminal justice
process.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied that it is still early to draw
conclusions. He said the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
estimated before the bill passed that about 2,000 individuals
would enter deflection in the first year. Current participation
is about 80 percent of that projection, which he described as
reasonable given the phased rollout of programs. He reported
that roughly 60 people have completed deflection successfully to
date, meaning they met the program requirements, though it is
not yet clear how successful they will be in the long term.
MR. SANCHAGRIN said the number of individuals who are going
through the justice system are higher than the number in
deflection programs. He explained that many of the deflection
programs launched around Christmas 2024, creating a gap between
recriminalization and the availability of deflection. He said
the Commission continues to work on this and other complexities
and is waiting to see clear outcomes.
2:24:48 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for background information on how monitoring
and follow-up occur under the new deflection program. He
wondered whether individuals were supervised after referral or
were simply dropped off, and whether the process resembles case
management or pretrial supervision.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied that deflection programs vary
substantially across Oregon. The legislature intentionally
allowed counties to experiment at the grassroots level, with the
aim of adopting more standardized practices later. He noted that
the Commission must deliver a best practices report by April 1
and write standards for deflection by year's end.
MR. SANCHAGRIN said Oregonians say, "If you've seen one Oregon
county, you've seen one Oregon county," and that is true for
county deflection programs as well. He explained that most
deflection programs do not employ a traditional criminal
justice-style approach to supervision, although case management
is an important component of the process. He expressed his
belief that some counties struggle a bit more with the referral
process due to delayed community court dates, which can
sometimes occur weeks after the citation. Expecting individuals
who are in the throes of addiction to appear for their court
date three weeks later poses challenges for them. Counties that
connect individuals immediately with a case manager and services
show the most success; therefore, this is a component of some
programs, but not all.
2:27:15 PM
SENATOR TOBIN referred to slide 16, noticing that 28 counties
participated in deflection programs. She asked whether
participation in deflection programs was voluntary and if there
is hope or intent to have all counties participate once best
practices are released.
MR. SANCHAGRIN affirmed that the deflection program is voluntary
and there are hopes that all counties will eventually
participate. He explained that the gray-colored counties on
slide 16 are generally large in area but small in population.
The funding formula for the initial rollout was based on factors
such as Medicaid population, overdose data, prior PCS arrest
data, and housing and homelessness issues. He said 17 counties
would have received extremely low amounts of money, in some
cases only tens of thousands of dollars. Because a program
cannot be started with such low funding, the statute guaranteed
a minimum funding level of $150,000. Many counties reported that
$150,000 was also insufficient to set up a deflection program.
He said the Commission had to be very aggressive in how it
rolled out the funding for these programs. He explained that one
critique of the BM 110 process was that the funding rollout for
the BHRNs was slow, it took 17 months to get the first check
issued and out the door. In contrast, the Commission was able to
get its checks out in six months, which was fast.
MR. SANCHAGRIN said some of the smaller counties lacked grant
writing staff or workers to put together applications. The
combination of lower funding amounts and the amount of work
needed to get the initial program started was a barrier for some
counties. Other counties deliberately chose to wait and observe
the first round before deciding whether to participate. He
expressed hope that, with a fuller and less rushed grant process
in the future, more counties will join. He emphasized that the
absence of programs in some counties should not be seen as a
lack of will.
2:29:58 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked what age group the system applies to,
stating her assumption that it does not cover juveniles and
applies only to individuals 18 or older.
MR. SANCHAGRIN confirmed that the system applies to adults. He
stated that a critique of both HB 4002 and BM 110 is that they
largely ignored the challenges associated with juvenile
substance use.
2:30:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to slide 6, specifically the
defelonization approach prior to BM 110. He sought clarification
on whether much of the conduct previously prosecuted as a felony
shifted to the misdemeanor level, without reducing the overall
number of prosecutions. He further asked if the real drop in
prosecutions occurred only after full decriminalization under
the Class E violation.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied that is very close. He said case volume
decreased by about 18 to 20 percent following defelonization,
though this was modest compared to the much larger reductions
that occurred after passage of BM 110.
2:31:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether, in the period before BM 110, there
were observable differences in treatment compliance among the
new misdemeanor class of offenders.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied not necessarily, clarifying that this
refers mostly to treatment connected to the criminal justice
system, such as programs through probation offices. He said
there was concern during both defelonization and the passage of
BM 110 that drug courts, which serve about 2,500 individuals per
year, would decline. However, neither reform approach
substantially impacted drug court enrollment. He explained that
Oregon's drug courts are risk-driven rather than charge-driven,
requiring high risk and high need to qualify. For
defelonization, individuals with small drug possessions and no
prior record typically did not qualify as high risk.
MR. SANCHAGRIN stated that even through the BM 110 process,
local courts saw some variation, but the overall drug court
population remained steady. He emphasized that this does not
mean treatment needs were being met. Individuals on supervision
often struggle to access treatment slots, a challenge also
reported by parole and probation departments. He reiterated that
the first defelonization step in 2017 did not lead to any
detectable reduction in drug court participation.
2:33:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN inquired about, what he describes as, 23-hour
crisis centers that are in many Oregon counties and are part of
the deflection path. He asked how long these crisis intervention
centers have been in place and how prevalent they are.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied that such centers are still relatively
rare, though more are being built. He said most counties aspire
to have them, with deflection dollars helping to support that
effort. He mentioned Deschutes County was the first to establish
a fully operational 24-hour center using both Commission grants
and federal funding and is leading in this area. He said these
centers have only been in place since the late 2010s.
MR. SANCHAGRIN said that other counties, such as Multnomah (home
to Portland) and Marion (home to Salem), are working to
establish similar facilities but face challenges with siting and
implementation in urban areas. He said while there is strong
interest, it remains relatively rare for counties to have
operational crisis centers.
2:34:19 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked what cities are well-known in Deschutes
County.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied that everybody loves Bend.
2:34:33 PM
CHAIR GRAY referred to slide 17, noting that the Grant County
program includes the Mobile Crisis Team in its response efforts.
He said that in Alaska, if a Mobile Crisis Team is used, law
enforcement would not be. Slide 17 states, "Any citations will
be held in abeyance if the individual is eligible for and agrees
to enter deflection." He remarked that in Alaska, issuing
citation is not a function of Mobile Crisis Teams, and he asked
how Oregon's Mobile Crisis Teams participate in this program if
they are not law enforcement.
MR. SANCHAGRIN replied that, as is the case with Grant County,
law enforcement would still make the referral, often alongside a
Mobile Crisis Team call. He explained that when law enforcement
encounters an individual, the Mobile Crisis Team may also
respond. He said Grant County is a small-population, large-area
county on Oregon's eastern side. In many of these eastern
counties, agencies are finding that Mobile Crisis Teams and law
enforcement typically engage with different populations.
Usually, these two groups do not work together, not because they
have a problem working together, but because they encounter very
different populations. He said in some of our smaller counties,
officials are beginning to realize that law enforcement may not
be the chief source of referrals into deflection programs.
Instead, Mobile Crisis Teams or other community-based services
may become the main entry point for individuals.
2:36:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said Alaska is on a similar timeline for crisis
centers. He recalled that the legislature passed its first
legislation on the issue in 2020 and supplemental legislation in
2022. He stated that Alaska would like to see more crisis
centers, but there are still relatively few in operation.
2:37:09 PM
There being no further business to come before the committees,
Chair Claman adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
and House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting at 2:37 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Presentation to Joint Judiciary Committee on Oregon Drug Policy by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission 2.19.25.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2025 1:30:00 PM |