HB 4114
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
Enrolled HB 4114 creates a private civil cause of action allowing property owners, occupants, or lawful visitors to sue individuals who enter specified properties under color of law without a judicial warrant or recognized exception. Successful plaintiffs recover economic and non-economic damages plus mandatory attorney fees, while suits against federal officers or agencies subject to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are explicitly barred. The measure takes effect immediately upon passage.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The statute appears designed to establish a state-level civil deterrent for warrantless law enforcement entries into sensitive locations, potentially addressing enforcement gaps where federal civil rights claims are procedurally limited or insufficient.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Gain a new statutory right to initiate civil suits for warrantless entries into defined properties, with guaranteed fee-shifting lowering litigation barriers.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Face potential state civil liability and mandatory fee awards if entries lack a judicial warrant or recognized exception, though federal officers/agencies are explicitly exempted.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Must adjudicate new trespass/warranty claims, interpret 'under color of law' and 'reasonable expectation of privacy,' and enforce mandatory plaintiff fee awards.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Law enforcement agencies may alter entry protocols for the defined properties to secure judicial warrants or strictly rely on recognized exceptions to avoid liability.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Plaintiffs face no direct state cost but gain guaranteed fee-shifting, increasing access to litigation for privacy violations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Defendants face potential economic/non-economic damages and mandatory fees, creating financial risk for routine law enforcement activities.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Private parties initiate enforcement rather than the state, with a two-year statute of limitations limiting long-tail claims.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Individuals targeted by federal immigration enforcement
A family successfully sues federal agents who entered their home without a warrant during a routine welfare check, recovering damages and fees under this statute where federal § 1983 claims were procedurally barred or insufficient.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Emergency medical or hospital personnel
A hospital administrator is sued for millions after emergency medical personnel (acting under color of law) enter a patient's room without a warrant to provide life-saving care, with the court finding no recognized exception applied due to strict statutory interpretation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
The statute's broad property definitions and mandatory fee-shifting create financial incentives for litigation that may blur lawful emergency entries with actionable trespasses, relying on courts to narrowly interpret exceptions.
Sources · Enrolled
Expands private civil remedies for warrantless law enforcement entries into sensitive locations while mandating fee-shifting to plaintiffs, but explicitly excludes federal officers and agencies from state liability, limiting the statute's reach against federal immigration or federal law enforcement operations.
Provides a direct state-level deterrent and compensation mechanism for privacy violations where federal remedies are unavailable.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Clarifies protected property types, reducing ambiguity around warrantless entries into schools, places of worship, and medical facilities.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Creates litigation risk and financial exposure for routine law enforcement activities, potentially chilling necessary emergency or administrative entries.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Mandatory fee-shifting may encourage meritless or strategically filed suits, increasing court burdens and defense costs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
The enrolled version completely replaces the prior B-Engrossed text's authorization for Department of Corrections employees to coordinate with federal immigration authorities regarding certain felons. Instead, it enacts a standalone private civil cause of action targeting warrantless entries under color of law into specified properties, removes all DOC coordination language, and adds explicit statutory carve-outs for federal § 1983 defendants and mandatory plaintiff fee awards.
Replaced state agency coordination authorization with a private civil cause of action.
Shifts enforcement from interagency cooperation to private litigation, altering liability exposure and operational focus.
Sources · Enrolled; Minority Report to B-Engrossed
Added immediate emergency effective date and mandatory attorney fee awards for prevailing plaintiffs.
Accelerates implementation and lowers financial barriers to litigation, increasing potential claim volume.
Sources · Enrolled
Explicitly barred suits against persons subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Limits the statute's reach against federal officers/agencies, preventing overlap with federal civil rights litigation.
Sources · Enrolled
Tradeoff: The prior version prioritized interagency coordination for specific felonies; the enrolled version prioritizes private civil deterrence of warrantless entries while explicitly shielding federal actors from state liability.
high confidence. The enrolled bill text is explicit regarding its cause of action, fee-shifting, property definitions, and § 1983 carve-out. Fiscal impacts are officially documented as minimal/no revenue impact. The absence of a stated rationale in the enrolled text necessitates cautious inference.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
If adopted, this amendment would replace the original bill’s broad mandate requiring all state and local law enforcement to cooperate with federal authorities for any felony or Class A misdemeanor with a narrow provision allowing only Oregon Department of Corrections employees to permissively coordinate with federal immigration agencies regarding individuals convicted of specific serious felonies. It removes the emergency declaration, eliminates the original civil cause of action against warrantless federal property entries, and strips private enforcement rights. Material consequences include shifting from a statewide mandatory cooperation framework to a limited, discretionary DOC-focused coordination exception while preserving Oregon’s sanctuary law protections for all other agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -AMR13 — proposed amendment; Minority Report A-Engrossed
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment appears designed to narrow the measure’s scope from a universal law enforcement cooperation mandate to a targeted, permissive coordination rule limited to DOC facilities and specific serious crimes, potentially to address concerns about overbreadth, jurisdictional friction, or conflicts with existing Oregon sanctuary statutes while still allowing limited federal immigration alignment for high-priority offenders.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -AMR13 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Gain discretionary authority to coordinate with federal immigration authorities for specified inmates; previously restricted by sanctuary statutes. Must develop internal policies, training, and operational protocols to manage coordination requests.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -AMR13 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
May receive DOC coordination for targeted inmate populations but lose any broader statewide law enforcement cooperation framework originally proposed. No new notice, identification, or warrant requirements are imposed by this amendment.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -AMR13 — proposed amendment; Minority Report A-Engrossed
Lose the statutory cause of action, attorney fee provisions, and warrant-entry restrictions against federal agents that were in the original bill. No new private right is created by this amendment.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Minority Report A-Engrossed
The amendment carves out a specific statutory exception to ORS 180.805 and ORS 181A.820–181A.829 for DOC coordination, creating a targeted override rather than a blanket repeal of sanctuary protections for other agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -AMR13 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Behavior and obligations shift from mandatory statewide cooperation to discretionary DOC-only coordination. Agencies retain full discretion over policy development, training, and operational protocols.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -AMR13 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
Fiscal impact to DOC is indeterminate due to unknown coordination volumes, required policy creation, and staff training needs. No direct state or local revenue impact is projected.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
Enforcement relies on agency discretion rather than clear operational standards, creating potential variability in how facilities handle federal requests and increasing litigation risk over jurisdictional authority.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement MRB; Staff Measure Summary B
Public safety and federal-state alignment
A DOC facility successfully coordinates with ICE to transfer an inmate convicted of aggravated murder and a felony sexual offense who faces imminent federal deportation, ensuring public safety without violating existing sanctuary statutes or requiring statewide law enforcement reallocation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -AMR13 — proposed amendment
Inmate rights and jurisdictional stability
DOC staff, lacking clear policy guidance, coordinate with federal immigration authorities for an inmate whose conviction technically meets the actual or threatened physical injury threshold but involves minor circumstances, leading to unauthorized detention delays, litigation over jurisdictional authority, and erosion of trust between DOC and immigrant communities.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -AMR13 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
The text legally permits discretionary coordination for specified felonies. It does not authorize warrantless arrests, immigration status inquiries outside custody contexts, or data sharing beyond what is necessary for coordination. However, misclassification of offenses or expanded operational practices could produce outcomes inconsistent with sanctuary statutes.
Sources · Amendment -AMR13 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
The amendment trades a broad, mandatory statewide cooperation framework and private enforcement rights for a narrow, discretionary DOC-focused coordination exception.
Reduces jurisdictional friction by limiting federal coordination to DOC facilities rather than all state and local agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -AMR13 — proposed amendment
Preserves sanctuary policy integrity for non-DOC agencies while allowing targeted federal immigration alignment for high-priority offenders.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -AMR13 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Eliminates costly private litigation mechanisms and mandatory notice/identification requirements originally proposed for federal agents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Minority Report A-Engrossed
Removes statutory private remedies and warrant-entry restrictions, leaving property owners without a clear civil enforcement path for federal agents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Minority Report A-Engrossed
Relies on agency discretion rather than clear operational standards, creating potential inconsistency in DOC coordination practices and compliance variability.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
Indeterminate fiscal impact due to unknown policy creation, training requirements, and coordination volumes could strain DOC resources over time.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit amendment text, official fiscal/revenue impact statements, and staff measure summaries. No enacted status or unverified claims are included.
If adopted, this amendment would mandate all Oregon state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal authorities regarding individuals convicted of felonies, explicitly overriding existing Oregon sanctuary statutes that currently restrict such coordination, while narrowing the scope of mandatory cooperation by removing Class A misdemeanors from the underlying bill.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment; Minority Report A-Engrossed
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment may aim to narrow the mandatory cooperation mandate from felonies and Class A misdemeanors to felonies only, potentially addressing concerns about overbroad enforcement obligations while maintaining alignment with federal priorities for serious crimes.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment; Minority Report A-Engrossed
Must adjust protocols to identify felony convictions and coordinate with federal entities, overriding prior discretion or sanctuary restrictions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Become subject to potential federal coordination without previous sanctuary safeguards, increasing exposure to federal immigration or other enforcement actions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Gain a statutory mandate for state/local cooperation regarding felony cases, potentially streamlining joint operations and information sharing.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
Agencies will need to update policies, train staff, and establish intergovernmental coordination procedures for felony cases. Existing Oregon sanctuary laws restricting information sharing and cooperation for immigration enforcement would be superseded for felony convictions. While official revenue impact statements report no direct fiscal impact, operational costs may arise from administrative adjustments and compliance monitoring.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRB; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Public safety and federal-state coordination
A state agency successfully coordinates with federal authorities to apprehend a high-profile fugitive convicted of a violent felony, preventing an imminent threat through streamlined information sharing.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Community trust and individual rights
A local department inadvertently shares records for a non-violent felony conviction due to broad interpretation of 'cooperate,' resulting in the removal of a long-term resident and straining community-police relations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
The text legally permits mandatory cooperation for felony convictions. However, weak enforcement or misclassification could lead to unlawful outcomes where agencies coordinate on non-felony cases, share protected immigration status data beyond the statutory scope, or use the mandate as a pretext for warrantless searches or detentions that violate federal constitutional standards.
Sources · Amendment -9 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The measure prioritizes streamlined federal-state cooperation on serious crimes at the expense of existing statutory limits designed to protect community trust and limit state involvement in federal immigration enforcement, yielding upsides such as faster felony case resolution and federal alignment alongside downsides including sanctuary erosion, reporting chilling effects, and local operational burdens.
Potentially faster resolution of felony cases through aligned federal-state resources.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Clearer statutory alignment with federal enforcement priorities for serious offenses.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
Erosion of Oregon sanctuary protections that historically limit state involvement in federal immigration enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Potential chilling effects on victim and witness reporting due to diminished community trust in local law enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Operational burdens on local agencies requiring policy updates, training, and intergovernmental coordination procedures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit amendment text, current bill language, and official legislative revenue/fiscal impact statements. Inferences are clearly labeled and bounded to the supplied documents.
The amendment would override all existing Oregon statutes restricting intergovernmental law enforcement coordination, mandating that every state and local agency assist federal authorities in any action involving a person convicted of an Oregon felony. Materially, this eliminates statutory sanctuary protections for felony-related matters, compels operational realignment across jurisdictions, and shifts liability and resource burdens to local agencies without appropriated funding.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The explicit override of 'any other provision of Oregon law' paired with a felony-only scope suggests an intent to standardize state-local cooperation for serious offenses, potentially responding to perceived enforcement gaps or federal court restrictions on warrantless operations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Legally compelled to cooperate with federal authorities regarding felony convictions, overriding prior discretion and sanctuary restrictions; requires policy revision, training, and potential jurisdictional realignment.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Lose statutory privacy and non-cooperation protections that previously limited state/local assistance in federal immigration or civil enforcement actions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Gain a statutory mandate requiring state and local cooperation for felony-related actions within Oregon, potentially increasing operational capacity but also intergovernmental friction.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Face increased oversight, potential litigation over compliance conflicts with existing sanctuary statutes, and shifted civil liability landscapes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Agencies must revise data-sharing protocols, arrest procedures, and intergovernmental agreements to comply with the mandatory cooperation requirement, regardless of prior sanctuary policies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Legislative Revenue Office reports no direct revenue impact; however, operational costs for policy development, staff training, and potential litigation remain unquantified and dependent on federal request volume.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Revenue Impact Statement MRB
Federal authorities gain expanded access to state/local resources for felony investigations or enforcement actions, while local agencies lose statutory discretion to decline assistance based on immigration status or jurisdictional boundaries.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Public safety and federal-state coordination
A coordinated federal-state task force rapidly apprehends a high-profile fugitive convicted of aggravated murder who previously evaded capture due to jurisdictional friction, preventing further violence and restoring public safety.
Basis: Inferred
Community trust and local liability
Local agencies are forced to assist in the detention or deportation of a nonviolent felony offender with deep community ties, triggering mass protests, loss of police legitimacy, and costly federal civil rights litigation against local officials for overreach.
Basis: Inferred
The text legally permits mandatory cooperation for any felony conviction. Weak oversight or broad administrative interpretation could enable agencies to assist in immigration enforcement actions that target individuals whose felony convictions are unrelated to public safety, effectively circumventing sanctuary law intent through duty creep or misclassification of 'cooperation.'
Sources · Amendment -10 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Mandating universal state-local cooperation for felonies prioritizes federal enforcement efficiency and uniformity over local discretion and established sanctuary protections.
Streamlined intergovernmental coordination
Basis: Inferred
Consistent application of felony-related enforcement
Basis: Inferred
Reduced jurisdictional friction in serious cases
Basis: Inferred
Erosion of statutory privacy and non-cooperation safeguards
Basis: Inferred
Potential community-policing friction and trust degradation
Basis: Inferred
Unresolved liability for agencies caught between conflicting state and federal mandates
Basis: Inferred
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit text of the proposed amendment, official revenue/fiscal statements, and staff summaries. No enacted provisions or external events are assumed.
If adopted, this amendment would override Oregon’s existing sanctuary restrictions by mandating that all state and local law enforcement agencies cooperate with federal authorities regarding individuals convicted of an Oregon felony, while removing the current bill’s inclusion of Class A misdemeanors. The material consequence is a statutory shift from discretionary or restricted cooperation to mandatory cooperation for felony cases, altering how state and local agencies interact with federal law enforcement in Oregon.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment; Minority Report A-Engrossed
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely narrows the scope of mandatory cooperation from felonies and Class A misdemeanors to felonies only, potentially reflecting a legislative compromise to address concerns about overreach into lower-level offenses while still overriding sanctuary protections. This inference is drawn from comparing the current bill text, which includes “felony or a Class A misdemeanor,” with the amendment text, which limits the mandate to “a felony under Oregon law.”
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment; Minority Report A-Engrossed
Would be legally required to coordinate with federal authorities regarding felony convictions, removing prior discretion and overriding sanctuary restrictions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Would lose sanctuary protections that previously limited state/local assistance with federal actions, potentially altering how they interact with law enforcement and access public services.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Would gain a statutory mandate for cooperation regarding felony cases within Oregon, regardless of current sanctuary limitations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
Agencies would need to develop or update policies, train staff, and establish coordination protocols to comply with the mandatory cooperation requirement.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Fiscal offices report minimal direct revenue impact, but operational costs for policy development and training would fall on affected agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement MRA; Fiscal Impact Statement A
The change would alter how individuals interact with law enforcement, potentially affecting access to public services and community trust due to the removal of sanctuary restrictions for felony convictions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
State and local law enforcement agencies in Oregon
A local police department successfully coordinates with federal authorities to apprehend a dangerous fugitive convicted of an Oregon felony, preventing a violent crime that would have occurred under prior sanctuary restrictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
State and local law enforcement agencies in Oregon
A municipal agency, prioritizing compliance over local public safety priorities, diverts significant resources to assist federal operations on felony cases unrelated to local threats, straining community relations and reducing capacity for local law enforcement needs.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
The text legally permits mandatory cooperation for felony convictions. A potentially unlawful outcome could arise if agencies misclassify offenses to meet the felony threshold, or if federal authorities use this mandate to conduct immigration enforcement beyond its stated scope, exploiting weak oversight or duty creep.
Sources · Amendment -9 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Mandating cooperation for felony convictions may enhance federal-state law enforcement coordination, but at the cost of overriding Oregon’s sanctuary framework and potentially straining local agency resources and community trust.
Enhanced federal-state law enforcement coordination regarding felony cases.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
Override of Oregon’s sanctuary framework and potential strain on local agency resources and community trust.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
medium confidence. Analysis is based on a proposed amendment text and official fiscal/staff summaries. Operational impact depends on future rulemaking, agency interpretation, and federal coordination requests not yet provided.
The amendment would statutorily override Oregon’s existing sanctuary protections by mandating that all state and local law enforcement agencies cooperate with federal authorities regarding any person convicted of an Oregon felony, fundamentally altering intergovernmental information-sharing and enforcement coordination.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The explicit override of sanctuary statutes and limitation to felony convictions suggests a policy objective to standardize Oregon law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration priorities for serious offenders, potentially addressing perceived gaps in current intergovernmental coordination frameworks.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Legally required to cooperate with federal authorities regarding felony convictions, overriding prior discretionary or restricted cooperation frameworks.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Subject to potential increased information sharing and coordination with federal immigration authorities, regardless of current sanctuary protections.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Granted statutory authorization to receive cooperation from all Oregon agencies concerning felony convictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Agencies must revise policies, training, and data-sharing protocols to comply with the new mandatory cooperation requirement for felony cases.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Current sanctuary law restrictions on immigration status inquiries and information disclosure are statutorily preempted for felony convictions, altering routine operational procedures.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
No direct revenue impact is projected, but operational costs may arise from policy updates, staff training, and potential legal challenges to the statutory override.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement MRB; Staff Measure Summary B
State and federal law enforcement coordination
A state agency successfully coordinates with federal authorities to swiftly remove a dangerous, convicted felon who was evading federal warrants, preventing a violent crime that would have occurred due to prior information-sharing restrictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Individuals convicted of felonies and local communities
A local police department, interpreting the mandate broadly or under pressure, shares immigration status data for a nonviolent felony offender without verifying federal jurisdictional claims, resulting in prolonged detention and family separation despite lacking probable cause for federal action.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
The text legally permits mandatory cooperation regarding felony convictions. However, weak enforcement or misclassification could lead to duty creep where agencies share information for non-felony offenses, immigration status inquiries unrelated to federal warrants, or routine traffic stops, effectively nullifying sanctuary protections beyond the statutory scope. Misinterpretation of 'cooperate' could also compel agencies to provide logistical support without clear legal boundaries, increasing liability exposure.
Sources · Amendment -10 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
The measure trades expanded intergovernmental law enforcement coordination for felony convictions against the erosion of statutory sanctuary protections and potential civil rights risks. Upsides include streamlined federal-state cooperation for serious offenders; downsides include mandatory information sharing that may conflict with privacy norms, increase litigation risk, and reduce community trust in local policing.
Streamlined federal-state cooperation for serious offenders.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Mandatory information sharing that may conflict with privacy norms, increase litigation risk, and reduce community trust in local policing.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
high confidence. The amendment text is explicit in its operative language and statutory override. Supporting fiscal and staff analyses confirm the scope of affected agencies and note the absence of revenue impact, though they acknowledge operational uncertainties.
Replaces the original HB 4114 with a single mandate requiring all Oregon state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal authorities regarding any person convicted of an Oregon felony or Class A misdemeanor, overriding all other Oregon laws. Material consequence: It nullifies existing sanctuary protections and the original bill’s civil liability framework, legally compelling statewide police cooperation with federal enforcement actions targeting those convicted individuals.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -MR8 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment’s explicit override of all other Oregon laws and its focus on felonies and Class A misdemeanors suggests an intent to supersede state sanctuary restrictions, potentially to align local enforcement priorities with federal immigration or criminal investigations targeting those specific convictions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -MR8 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Legally compelled to assist federal authorities for specified convictions, removing prior departmental discretion and sanctuary policy flexibility.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -MR8 — proposed amendment
Face increased potential for federal coordination and enforcement actions, with reduced procedural protections originally proposed in the unamended bill.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -MR8 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Gain a statutory mandate for intergovernmental cooperation regarding specified convictions, expanding access to state/local records and personnel.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -MR8 — proposed amendment
Lose the civil cause of action, notice requirements, and identification mandates originally proposed in HB 4114, reducing legal recourse for warrantless federal entries.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Agencies must revise policies and training to facilitate mandatory federal coordination, shifting operational focus regardless of local resource constraints.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -MR8 — proposed amendment
The mandate carries minimal direct fiscal impact but introduces indirect costs for policy development and jurisdictional management.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement MRA; Revenue Impact Statement MRA
Federal agents gain expanded access to state/local records and personnel regarding specified convictions, while the removal of the original civil liability framework reduces legal risk for federal operations in Oregon.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -MR8 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Local law enforcement and public safety
A local sheriff’s department successfully coordinates with federal authorities to apprehend a violent felony fugitive who evaded capture across state lines, preventing further harm and securing a conviction without jurisdictional delays.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -MR8 — proposed amendment
Minority offenders and community trust
A minor Class A misdemeanor offender is flagged for federal immigration enforcement due to the broad cooperation mandate, resulting in detention and removal despite no violent criminal history, straining local resources and community trust.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -MR8 — proposed amendment
The amendment does not limit the nature of federal actions or require judicial oversight, creating room for administrative expansion beyond criminal justice cooperation.
Sources · Amendment -MR8 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Mandating universal law enforcement cooperation for specified convictions streamlines federal-state coordination but eliminates state discretion and existing sanctuary protections, trading local control and community trust for expanded federal enforcement access. Upsides include predictable intergovernmental cooperation and potential reduction in fugitive evasion. Downsides include erosion of state sanctuary policies, increased risk of over-policing minor offenses, and potential strain on local-federal jurisdictional boundaries.
Predictable intergovernmental cooperation and potential reduction in fugitive evasion.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -MR8 — proposed amendment
Erosion of state sanctuary policies, increased risk of over-policing minor offenses, and potential strain on local-federal jurisdictional boundaries.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -MR8 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit text of the proposed amendment, official fiscal/revenue statements, and staff summaries. No legislative intent or enacted status is assumed.
The amendment would replace the introduced bill and mandate that all Oregon state and local law enforcement agencies cooperate with federal authorities regarding any person convicted of a felony or Class A misdemeanor under Oregon law. This would override existing Oregon sanctuary statutes, compel local agencies to assist federal immigration or criminal operations for a broad range of offenses, and shift operational control toward federal enforcement priorities without judicial warrants or state-level oversight mechanisms.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment’s blanket cooperation requirement tied to felony and Class A misdemeanor convictions suggests an intent to align Oregon’s law enforcement posture with federal criminal or immigration enforcement priorities, potentially in response to perceived limitations in current sanctuary protections.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Legally required to assist federal authorities for felonies and Class A misdemeanors, overriding existing statutory restrictions on immigration cooperation and requiring new coordination protocols.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Face increased exposure to federal enforcement actions, including potential immigration proceedings or federal prosecution, following routine state or local contact.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Must resolve direct statutory conflicts between the new cooperation mandate and existing sanctuary laws, potentially triggering litigation or requiring emergency rulemaking.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Agencies must develop training, data-sharing systems, and operational guidelines to comply with the cooperation mandate while navigating conflicting state sanctuary restrictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Local jurisdictions may incur administrative and training costs without dedicated funding, as fiscal analyses indicate minimal impact but do not address implementation logistics.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Public trust and access to local law enforcement may decline if residents perceive routine police contact as a pathway to federal referral, particularly among immigrant communities or individuals with prior records.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
State and local law enforcement agencies
A county sheriff’s office successfully coordinates with federal authorities to apprehend a violent fugitive convicted of a felony, preventing further harm and demonstrating streamlined intergovernmental crisis response.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Individuals with prior felony or Class A misdemeanor convictions
A local officer automatically refers an individual arrested for a Class A misdemeanor drug possession charge to federal immigration enforcement without judicial review, resulting in deportation despite the person’s long-term Oregon residency, family ties, and lack of state-level threat.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits mandatory cooperation for qualifying convictions. Weak enforcement, misclassification of offenses, or duty creep could lead agencies to cooperate on non-qualifying cases, share protected immigration status data contrary to existing sanctuary law, or use the mandate as a pretext to facilitate federal warrantless operations without judicial oversight.
Sources · Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
The measure prioritizes uniform state-federal law enforcement alignment over individual privacy and local jurisdictional autonomy, potentially enhancing public safety coordination while increasing risks of over-policing, statutory conflict, and erosion of sanctuary protections.
Streamlined intergovernmental crisis response and apprehension of high-risk fugitives.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Clearer operational alignment with federal criminal enforcement priorities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Erosion of existing sanctuary protections and increased statutory conflict for state legal counsel.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Deterrence of public trust in local law enforcement and potential chilling effects on community policing.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded solely in the supplied proposed amendment text and official fiscal/staff summaries. No enacted status or external speculation is asserted.
The amendment replaces the introduced bill’s notice, identification, and intergovernmental coordination requirements with a private civil cause of action. It allows property owners, occupants, or lawful visitors to sue individuals who enter their property under color of law without a court-issued warrant (where no judicial exception applies). Material consequences include mandatory attorney fee awards to prevailing plaintiffs, potential liability for defendants, and an explicit statutory bar against suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment may reflect a strategic shift from regulatory oversight to private enforcement, narrowing the scope to warrantless entries while explicitly carving out federal civil rights liability to avoid preemption conflicts. Basis: Text replaces broad operational rules with a targeted tort and adds a § 1983 carve-out; background notes reference ongoing federal litigation over warrantless arrests.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Gain a new state-law cause of action for warrantless entries under color of law, with access to damages, equitable relief, and mandatory attorney fees.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Face potential civil liability under Oregon tort law for warrantless entries but are statutorily shielded from suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Must interpret 'under color of law,' 'reasonable expectation of privacy,' and the scope of the § 1983 carve-out, potentially increasing civil dockets.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Are removed from the introduced bill’s DOJ notice requirements and coordination prohibitions, eliminating direct regulatory obligations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Agents may prioritize obtaining warrants or documenting judicial exceptions to mitigate state tort exposure.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Plaintiffs bear upfront litigation costs but recover fees if prevailing; defendants face potential damages and equitable relief, with courts able to award fees for frivolous claims.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Claims are limited to warrantless entries where no judicial exception applies and require proving the defendant acted under color of law.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Relies on private litigation rather than state enforcement, creating variable deterrence and potential jurisdictional friction with federal operations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Property owners/lawful visitors
A plaintiff successfully proves a federal agent entered a home without a warrant or applicable exception, recovers substantial economic and noneconomic damages plus attorney fees, and establishes a strong precedent that deters future warrantless operations in Oregon.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Private security contractors or emergency responders
A private actor is misclassified as acting 'under color of law,' triggering automatic fee awards and significant liability, chilling legitimate private or contracted services on sensitive locations like schools or medical facilities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
The statute creates a state-law tort but carves out federal civil rights liability; ambiguous phrasing around 'under color of law' and 'reasonable expectation of privacy' may invite expansive litigation or misapplication to non-governmental actors.
Sources · Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
The measure trades a comprehensive regulatory framework for federal and out-of-state law enforcement operations for a narrower private civil cause of action targeting warrantless entries, while explicitly barring suits under federal civil rights statutes. Upsides include reduced state administrative burden, focused deterrence against warrantless entries, and guaranteed fee recovery for successful plaintiffs. Downsides include the loss of proactive coordination and notice requirements, potential jurisdictional conflicts with federal enforcement authority, and reliance on private litigation rather than systemic oversight.
Reduces state administrative burden by eliminating DOJ notice tracking and interagency coordination mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Provides clear, mandatory fee-shifting to deter warrantless entries and empower private enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Removes proactive notice and identification requirements that previously facilitated intergovernmental coordination.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Creates potential jurisdictional friction by imposing state tort liability on federal actors while explicitly barring § 1983 suits, leaving enforcement gaps.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text and official committee/fiscal summaries. No enacted status, sponsor intent beyond background notes, or external litigation outcomes are assumed.
If adopted, the amendment would replace the original bill’s civil liability and warrant-protection framework with a statutory mandate requiring all Oregon state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal authorities regarding individuals convicted of felonies or Class A misdemeanors, effectively overriding existing Oregon sanctuary laws that restrict such cooperation.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment may reflect a legislative policy shift toward aligning state enforcement priorities with federal objectives for convicted offenders, potentially responding to concerns about gaps in cross-jurisdictional accountability or seeking to standardize intergovernmental law enforcement coordination.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Must comply with mandatory cooperation directives for specified convictions, losing statutory discretion under current sanctuary laws to decline federal immigration or civil enforcement assistance.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Face increased likelihood of federal enforcement actions facilitated by state/local agencies, with reduced procedural barriers to cross-jurisdictional coordination.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Lose the original bill’s proposed civil cause of action against federal agents for warrantless property entries, eliminating a statutory remedy for unauthorized law enforcement operations within the state.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Introduced; Staff Measure Summary A
Gain a clear statutory basis to request and receive operational coordination from all Oregon agencies regarding targeted individuals, potentially streamlining enforcement logistics.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Agencies will need to revise policies, update training protocols, and establish procedures for verifying conviction status and coordinating with federal counterparts, creating administrative burdens despite minimal direct fiscal impact designations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
Eligibility for sanctuary protections is statutorily removed for the specified offense classes, altering how agencies handle federal requests and potentially shifting resource allocation toward intergovernmental coordination.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Enforcement of the cooperation mandate will depend on internal agency compliance mechanisms rather than external penalties, raising risks of inconsistent application or duty creep into unauthorized federal matters.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
State and local law enforcement agencies
Agencies successfully coordinate with federal authorities to apprehend a high-priority fugitive convicted of a violent felony who had evaded capture by exploiting jurisdictional gaps, resulting in the prevention of further serious crimes and streamlined intergovernmental task force operations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Oregon residents and state government
A local agency, operating under resource constraints or misclassified records, assists federal authorities in detaining an individual whose conviction status is disputed or whose case involves protected immigration proceedings, triggering constitutional challenges, costly litigation for the state, and severe erosion of community trust in law enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The broad 'notwithstanding any other provision' language removes existing statutory guardrails, while the absence of verification protocols or oversight mechanisms creates conditions where duty creep or record errors could trigger unauthorized federal coordination.
Sources · Amendment -6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The measure prioritizes intergovernmental law enforcement coordination over individual privacy protections and local discretion, potentially enhancing federal enforcement efficiency while eroding sanctuary safeguards and civil remedies for warrantless entries.
Streamlined cross-jurisdictional enforcement for convicted offenders may reduce gaps in accountability and improve interagency task force operations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Clear statutory mandate reduces ambiguity for agencies receiving federal coordination requests, potentially standardizing compliance procedures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Overrides existing sanctuary statutes, removing legislative safeguards designed to limit state involvement in federal immigration enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Eliminates the original bill’s civil cause of action, leaving residents without a statutory remedy for unauthorized federal law enforcement operations on private property.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text, staff measure summaries, and fiscal statements. No external speculation or unverified claims are included.
If adopted, the amendment would legally compel all Oregon state and local law enforcement agencies to assist federal authorities in any action involving individuals charged with or convicted of felonies or Class A misdemeanors, explicitly overriding existing Oregon sanctuary statutes that currently restrict such cooperation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment reflects a policy shift to align state enforcement priorities with federal criminal or immigration objectives by removing discretionary barriers to intergovernmental coordination.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Loses discretionary authority under current sanctuary laws and faces a mandatory duty to assist federal authorities for covered offenses.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Faces increased likelihood of federal intervention, including potential immigration enforcement, facilitated by state and local agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Effectively nullified for the covered offense categories, altering long-standing policy boundaries between state and federal enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Agencies must share information, provide logistical or tactical support, or otherwise assist federal agents for covered crimes, regardless of prior sanctuary restrictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Legislative revenue and fiscal offices report minimal to no direct revenue impact, but operational costs may shift to agencies developing new coordination protocols and managing potential legal challenges. Enforcement relies on agency compliance rather than a dedicated oversight mechanism.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: IS_Impact HB 4114 4; Fiscal Impact Statement MRA
Increases federal access to state/local records and personnel; raises jurisdictional conflict and civil rights risks for residents and officers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
State and federal law enforcement coordination
Streamlined, mandatory coordination could lead to faster apprehension of high-priority fugitives or violent offenders who cross state lines, eliminating jurisdictional delays.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Oregon residents and local agencies
State/local agencies could be compelled to assist in federal immigration actions targeting individuals with minor Class A misdemeanor records, potentially straining community trust and triggering constitutional challenges over compelled cooperation.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The text legally permits mandatory cooperation for felonies and Class A misdemeanors. Weak enforcement, broad interpretation of 'any action concerning any person,' or misclassification of offenses could lead agencies to assist in federal actions beyond the statutory scope (e.g., civil immigration violations or non-covered offenses) due to duty creep or pressure to prioritize federal directives over local discretion.
Sources · Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Mandating cooperation prioritizes federal enforcement efficiency and uniformity at the cost of Oregon’s longstanding policy autonomy and community trust in local law enforcement. Upsides include clearer intergovernmental coordination and reduced jurisdictional friction for covered crimes, while downsides involve erosion of sanctuary protections, potential civil rights conflicts, and loss of local discretion over policing priorities.
Clearer intergovernmental coordination and reduced jurisdictional friction for covered crimes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Erosion of sanctuary protections, potential civil rights conflicts, and loss of local discretion over policing priorities.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit amendment text and official legislative revenue/fiscal statements. Hypotheses are clearly labeled as inferences and bounded to the supplied text.
If adopted, this amendment would override existing Oregon sanctuary and non-cooperation statutes by mandating that all state and local law enforcement agencies cooperate with federal authorities regarding any person charged with or convicted of a felony or Class A misdemeanor. The material consequence is a fundamental shift in Oregon’s law enforcement posture, eliminating discretionary non-cooperation for these offenses and exposing agencies to statutory conflict, litigation risk, and operational realignment.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment appears designed to align state enforcement priorities with federal criminal or immigration objectives by removing sanctuary-law barriers for serious offenses. This inference is drawn from the explicit notwithstanding clause and legislative context highlighting interactions with Oregon’s sanctuary laws and federal enforcement operations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Must shift from discretionary or restricted cooperation to mandatory coordination for felonies and Class A misdemeanors, requiring policy revisions, training updates, and potential reallocation of operational resources.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Gain a statutory mandate for state/local support in actions involving specified offenses, potentially increasing operational capacity and logistical support within Oregon.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Face increased likelihood of federal-state joint enforcement actions, including potential immigration-related coordination if the underlying offense overlaps with federal jurisdiction.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Experience a reversal of current sanctuary protections, altering community-police dynamics and legal recourse options for perceived overreach.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Agencies will need to update use-of-force policies, intergovernmental agreements, and training protocols to comply with the new mandate. The Legislative Fiscal Office notes minimal direct fiscal impact, but indirect costs will arise from administrative restructuring, potential litigation over statutory conflicts, and liability exposure under existing civil rights frameworks.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement MRB; Fiscal Impact Statement MRA
Enforcement will likely trigger legal challenges regarding preemption and conflict with existing sanctuary statutes, creating uncertainty for agencies attempting to balance competing mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Public safety and intergovernmental coordination
Coordinated federal-state task forces successfully dismantle large-scale cross-border trafficking or violent criminal networks that previously exploited jurisdictional gaps and sanctuary restrictions, improving public safety outcomes without triggering statutory conflicts.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Civil rights and municipal liability
State/local officers are compelled to assist in warrantless federal immigration sweeps targeting Class A misdemeanors, resulting in widespread civil rights litigation, loss of community trust, and costly indemnification claims against municipalities for unlawful detentions or excessive force.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The text legally permits mandatory cooperation for felonies and Class A misdemeanors. However, weak enforcement oversight or misclassification of charges could enable duty creep, where agencies expand coordination to immigration status checks or lower-level offenses not covered by the statute. Without clear audit mechanisms, cooperation could be interpreted broadly to include information sharing or logistical support that circumvents existing sanctuary protections.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The measure trades expanded federal enforcement capacity and uniformity in serious crime response for the erosion of state-controlled sanctuary policies and increased legal liability for local agencies. Upsides include streamlined intergovernmental coordination and potentially faster resolution of cross-jurisdictional criminal cases; downsides include heightened civil rights litigation risk, strained community relations, and statutory conflicts that could paralyze agency operations during judicial review.
Streamlined federal-state task forces successfully dismantle large-scale cross-border trafficking or violent criminal networks that previously exploited jurisdictional gaps and sanctuary restrictions, improving public safety outcomes without triggering statutory conflicts.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Uniform enforcement standards reduce jurisdictional friction and accelerate case processing for serious offenses across state lines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
State/local officers are compelled to assist in warrantless federal immigration sweeps targeting Class A misdemeanors, resulting in widespread civil rights litigation, loss of community trust, and costly indemnification claims against municipalities for unlawful detentions or excessive force.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Statutory conflicts with existing sanctuary laws create operational paralysis during litigation, leaving agencies uncertain about compliance obligations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit statutory text of the proposed amendment and official legislative fiscal/revenue statements. Inferences are clearly labeled and bounded to lawful statutory interpretation.
The amendment replaces the original bill’s administrative notice and intergovernmental coordination framework with a private civil cause of action that allows property owners, occupants, or lawfully present individuals to sue any person acting under color of law who enters property without a judicial warrant or recognized exception. If adopted, it would create immediate statutory damages (up to $105,000+ cumulatively per incident), mandate attorney fees for prevailing plaintiffs, and explicitly bar suits against entities already subject to 42 U.S.C. 1983 liability, while taking effect immediately upon passage.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The measure responds to increased federal immigration enforcement operations in Oregon and a February 4, 2026 federal court injunction that restricted warrantless arrests by immigration agents. The legislative background cites ongoing litigation challenging the legality of those warrantless entries.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely shifts enforcement strategy from administrative notice requirements to direct private deterrence, using statutory damages and mandatory attorney fees to create immediate financial consequences for warrantless entries while avoiding potential intergovernmental friction over federal preemption or coordination protocols.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gain a direct private right to sue for warrantless entries under color of law. Can recover statutory damages up to $105,000+ per incident (base $15k + protected space $15k + excessive force $25k + nighttime entry $15k + vulnerable plaintiff status $25k) plus mandatory attorney fees if prevailing.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Face potential civil liability for warrantless entries that lack a judicially recognized exception. Must navigate heightened litigation risk, particularly regarding the scope of 'reasonable expectation of privacy' and 'under color of law.'
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Removed from the original bill’s 48-hour notice requirement, identification mandates, and coordination prohibitions. No longer bear administrative tracking burdens or face statutory penalties for failing to coordinate with federal/out-of-state operations under this measure.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Will adjudicate new civil claims, interpret warrant exceptions, determine 'reasonable expectation of privacy' boundaries, and apply statutory damage tiers. Mandatory attorney fee awards will shift litigation economics toward plaintiff representation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Agents may alter entry tactics to ensure warrant compliance or strictly rely on established judicial exceptions to avoid liability. Property owners may monitor for unauthorized entries and pursue litigation, knowing prevailing plaintiffs receive guaranteed attorney fees.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
No direct state or local fiscal impact is projected by the Legislative Revenue Office or Legislative Fiscal Office, as enforcement relies on private litigation rather than government-funded programs.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Revenue Impact Statement MRA; Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
The explicit carve-out barring suits against persons subject to 42 U.S.C. 1983 may limit federal court jurisdiction over these claims, potentially creating parallel state remedies or requiring courts to delineate when the state cause of action applies versus federal civil rights statutes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Vulnerable property owner
A 70-year-old plaintiff with a serious medical condition experiences a warrantless nighttime entry by federal agents at their home. The plaintiff prevails, recovering $15k (base) + $15k (protected space if applicable) + $25k (excessive force) + $15k (nighttime) + $25k (vulnerable status) = $95k in statutory damages plus mandatory attorney fees, creating a strong financial deterrent against future unauthorized operations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Law enforcement responding to exigency
Agents enter a medical facility without a warrant due to a genuine, documented exigent circumstance (e.g., active threat or imminent danger) that qualifies as a judicially recognized exception. Despite lawful conduct under recognized exceptions, the plaintiff sues, alleging the entry lacked a warrant and violated privacy expectations. Agents face $105k+ in statutory damages and litigation costs, chilling legitimate emergency response.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits suits for warrantless entries lacking exceptions, but weak enforcement of the 'frivolous' fee-shifting provision or ambiguous privacy standards could enable strategic litigation that misapplies the statute.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The measure trades proactive intergovernmental coordination and administrative oversight for immediate private civil deterrence against warrantless entries under color of law.
Provides direct, financially backed legal recourse for privacy violations without requiring state resources.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Statutory damages and mandatory attorney fees create strong financial deterrence against unauthorized federal or out-of-state operations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Creates litigation uncertainty for law enforcement operating in gray areas of warrant exceptions, potentially chilling legitimate emergency or investigative actions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Removes the original bill’s structured notice and coordination framework that could have prevented conflicts proactively through interagency communication.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied amendment text, staff summaries, and fiscal statements. No external speculation or unverified claims are included.
The amendment would legally mandate all Oregon state and local law enforcement agencies to assist federal authorities in any action involving a person charged with or convicted of a felony or Class A misdemeanor, explicitly overriding existing Oregon sanctuary laws that currently restrict such cooperation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure appears designed to align state enforcement priorities with federal objectives by removing statutory barriers to cooperation, potentially in response to increased federal law enforcement activity within Oregon.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Lose discretion to decline federal requests for covered offenses; must revise policies and train personnel to comply with mandatory cooperation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Face heightened exposure to federal immigration or criminal enforcement due to mandatory state/local assistance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Gain a statutory mandate requiring state and local agencies to assist them, potentially expanding operational capacity in Oregon.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
May experience shifts in local policing dynamics and community trust due to expanded federal enforcement reach into local jurisdictions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Agencies must revise policies and train personnel to comply with the mandatory cooperation requirement, potentially diverting resources from local priorities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Officers would be legally obligated to assist federal authorities for covered offenses regardless of current sanctuary restrictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
The Legislative Revenue Office and Legislative Fiscal Office report no direct revenue or minimal fiscal impact, but indirect costs may arise from policy development, training, and potential litigation over compliance boundaries.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement MRA; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Public safety agencies
A local agency rapidly deploys resources to apprehend a dangerous fugitive wanted by federal authorities for a felony, preventing imminent harm without bureaucratic delays.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Oregon residents and legal aid systems
Local police are compelled to assist in large-scale enforcement actions targeting nonviolent Class A misdemeanants, leading to widespread community displacement and severe strain on local legal aid and social service systems.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
inference
Sources · Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
The measure prioritizes unified state-federal law enforcement cooperation over existing state privacy and sanctuary protections, potentially increasing public safety through enhanced federal coordination while risking community trust erosion and expanded federal enforcement reach into local jurisdictions.
Streamlined intergovernmental coordination for serious criminal cases.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Reduced jurisdictional friction when federal authorities pursue high-priority targets in Oregon.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Erosion of community trust if residents perceive local police as federal immigration or enforcement agents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Loss of local discretion to prioritize community safety over federal mandates for covered offenses.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit statutory override language, mandatory cooperation mandate, and official fiscal/staff summaries provided. Inferences are clearly labeled and bounded to the supplied text.
The amendment would legally require all Oregon state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal authorities regarding individuals charged with or convicted of felonies or Class A misdemeanors, explicitly overriding existing Oregon sanctuary statutes that currently restrict such assistance. If adopted, it would eliminate local discretion to decline cooperation for these offenses and mandate interagency alignment regardless of other state laws.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment appears designed to compel uniform state-federal coordination on serious criminal matters, potentially addressing jurisdictional gaps or operational friction during periods of heightened federal enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Legally obligated to cooperate with federal authorities for specified offenses, losing statutory discretion under current sanctuary laws.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Subject to potential federal action facilitated by state/local cooperation, regardless of immigration status or other protections.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Increased likelihood of federal law enforcement presence and coordination with local agencies, potentially altering community-police dynamics.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Agencies must revise policies to mandate information sharing, detainers, or tactical support for the specified offenses, superseding current sanctuary compliance procedures.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Official analyses indicate minimal direct fiscal impact, but operational costs may arise from policy revision, staff training, and interagency coordination protocols. Enforcement relies on agency compliance rather than a new penalty mechanism.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement MRA; Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
Public safety and federal-state coordination
Streamlined mandatory cooperation could enable rapid apprehension of violent fugitives or dangerous offenders who previously evaded capture due to jurisdictional barriers or sanctuary restrictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Local agencies and community trust
Local agencies could be compelled to assist in federal operations targeting low-level Class A misdemeanors, potentially diverting resources from state-prioritized public safety goals and straining community trust in law enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
The statutory language mandates cooperation but does not define operational boundaries, creating room for procedural overreach if agencies interpret compliance broadly.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Mandating cooperation prioritizes federal-state alignment on serious crimes at the expense of local discretion and existing statutory protections against compelled assistance in federal investigations.
Enhanced public safety coordination, streamlined apprehension of serious offenders, and uniform enforcement standards across jurisdictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Erosion of sanctuary policies, potential degradation of community trust in law enforcement, operational burdens on local agencies, and reduced ability to prioritize state-specific public safety goals.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
high confidence. The amendment text is explicit in its mandatory language and override clause. Official fiscal and staff analyses confirm the scope of impact and note minimal direct revenue effects, though operational uncertainties remain.
62 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Follow the official text for HB 4114 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available. Dotted links flag likely related proposals based on their text.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals. Dotted teal links are text-based early signals, not official amendment relationships.
Selected document summary
Targeted changes
What the document says to change
On page 4 of the printed bill, after line 10, insert: 2 “SECTION 5.
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
The text changed substantially while keeping measure number HB 4114.
Chief sponsors: Representative Lesly Muñoz, Representative Mark Gamba, Senator Floyd Prozanski, Representative Tom Andersen, Representative Sarah McDonald, Representative Lamar Wise, Senator Khanh Pham, Representative Ricki Ruiz, Representative Willy Chotzen, Senator James Manning Jr., Senator Courtney Neron Misslin, Senator Lew Frederick
Regular sponsors: Representative Lisa Fragala, Representative Travis Nelson, Representative Sue Rieke Smith, Representative Pam Marsh, Representative Susan McLain, Representative Thuy Tran, Representative Cyrus Javadi, Senator Mark Meek, Senator Wlnsvey Campos, Senator Deb Patterson, Senator Janeen Sollman
House carrier
Representative Lesly Muñoz
Consideration Of Committee And Minority Reports · Version A
House carrier
Representative Willy Chotzen
Consideration Of Committee And Minority Reports · Version A
House carrier
Representative Willy Chotzen
Third Reading and Final Consideration · Version A
House carrier
Representative Lesly Muñoz
Third Reading and Final Consideration · Version A
House carrier
Representative Kevin Mannix
Consideration Of Committee And Minority Reports · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Consideration Of Committee and Minority Reports · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Third Reading and Final Consideration · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Mike McLane
Consideration Of Committee and Minority Reports · Version B
A carrier presents the measure or report but is not necessarily its sponsor or author.
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
62 events
Full timeline
62 entries shown.
Chapter 58, (2026 Laws): Effective date March 31, 2026.
Governor signed.
President signed.
Speaker signed.
Third reading. Carried by Prozanski. Passed.
Ayes, 18; Nays, 11--Anderson, Girod, Hayden, Linthicum, McLane, Nash, Robinson, Smith DB, Starr, Thatcher, Weber; Excused, 1--Drazan.
Motion to substitute Minority Report for Committee Report failed.
Ayes, 11; Nays, 18--Broadman, Campos, Frederick, Gelser Blouin, Golden, Gorsek, Jama, Lieber, Manning Jr, Meek, Neron Misslin, Patterson, Pham, Prozanski, Reynolds, Sollman, Taylor, President Wagner; Excused, 1--Drazan.
Second reading.
Minority Report to B-Engrossed bill text posted
Senate Minority Amendments to A-Engrossed bill text posted
Minority Recommendation: Do pass with amendments to the A-Eng. bill. (Printed B-Eng Minority)
Recommendation: Do pass the A-Eng bill.
Staff Measure Summary · Version B · Minority
Fiscal Impact Statement · Version MRB
Staff Measure Summary · Version A
Fiscal Impact Statement · Version A
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out · Agenda item 8 · Room HR C · Creates a civil cause of action against certain individuals who under color of law enter certain property without a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.
Amendment -AMR13 proposed
Amendment -9 proposed
Amendment -10 proposed
IS_Impact HB 4114 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 8 · Room HR C · Creates a civil cause of action against certain individuals who under color of law enter certain property without a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.
Amendment -A9 proposed
Amendment -A10 proposed
IS_Impact HB 4114 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Referred to Judiciary.
First reading. Referred to President's desk.
Third reading. Carried by Munoz, Chotzen. Passed.
Ayes, 36; Nays, 4--Elmer, Harbick, Mannix, Yunker; Excused, 3--Diehl, Hartman, Wright; Excused for Business of the House, 17--Boice, Boshart Davis, Breese-Iverson, Bunch, Cate, Edwards, Helfrich, Levy B, Lewis, McIntire, Osborne, Owens, Reschke, Scharf, Skarlatos, Smith G, Wallan.
Motion to substitute Minority Report for Committee Report failed.
Ayes, 6; Nays, 34--Bowman, Cate, Chaichi, Chotzen, Dobson, Evans, Fragala, Gamba, Gomberg, Grayber, Helm, Hudson, Isadore, Javadi, Kropf, Lively, Marsh, McDonald, McLain, Munoz, Nathanson, Nelson, Nguyen D, Nosse, Pham H, Rieke Smith, Ruiz, Sanchez, Sosa, Tran, Walters, Watanabe, Wise, Speaker Fahey; Excused, 4--Diehl, Hartman, Valderrama, Wright; Excused for Business of the House, 16--Boice, Boshart Davis, Breese-Iverson, Bunch, Edwards, Harbick, Helfrich, Levy B, Lewis, McIntire, Osborne, Owens, Reschke, Scharf, Skarlatos, Wallan.
Second reading.
Minority Report A-Engrossed bill text posted
House Minority Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
House Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Minority Recommendation: Do pass with different amendments and be printed A-Engrossed.
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be printed A-Engrossed.
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 9 · Room HR B · Creates a civil cause of action against federal law enforcement agents and law enforcement agents of another state in specified circumstances.
Amendment -MR8 minority report
IS_Impact HB 4114 5
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -7 proposed
Amendment -5 adopted
IS_Impact HB 4114 4
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -6 proposed
Amendment -3 proposed
Amendment -2 proposed
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 3 · Room HR B · Creates a civil cause of action against federal law enforcement agents and law enforcement agents of another state in specified circumstances.
Amendment -1 proposed
Amendment -3 proposed
Amendment -2 proposed
Referred to Judiciary.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
“Enrolled bill text posted”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.