HB 4138
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
Analyzing the source text. Existing briefs remain unchanged.
Latest analysis in progress. Showing the superseded Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed brief.
The measure mandates visible officer identification and restricts facial coverings during official duties, with narrow exemptions for undercover work, tactical operations, extreme weather, and election security. It prohibits state and local law enforcement from intentionally assisting federal or out-of-state agencies in investigations or arrests based on protected constitutional rights, membership in protected classes, or unlawful searches/seizures. Agencies may cooperate if they receive a sworn attestation that the request does not violate these prohibitions, but obtaining an attestation is explicitly optional. Violations trigger a private right of action for injunctive relief. The law takes effect immediately upon passage.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: B-Engrossed; Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Official staff analysis cites increased immigration enforcement operations nationwide since 2025 involving masked agents and identification failures, prompting multiple jurisdictions to propose laws regulating the masking and identification of law enforcement officers.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The voluntary attestation mechanism likely aims to create a procedural safe harbor that reduces legal exposure for agencies cooperating with federal partners while preserving the state's ability to refuse assistance in potentially unconstitutional operations, addressing concerns about federal preemption and intergovernmental liability.
Basis: Inferred · Source: B-Engrossed
Must update uniforms to visibly display officer ID/agency name/badge; draft and publicly post facial covering policies within 180 days; establish internal policies restricting cooperation with federal/out-of-state agencies; face potential circuit court injunctions for noncompliance or policy deficiencies.
Basis: Bill text · Source: B-Engrossed
Subject to Oregon's identification rules when on duty; may be asked to provide sworn attestations clarifying the nature of cooperation requests, though providing them remains optional.
Basis: Bill text · Source: B-Engrossed
Gain clearer officer identification during encounters; acquire a statutory mechanism to challenge agency policies or prohibited cooperation via private injunction actions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: B-Engrossed
Explicitly classified as agents of a public body under the Oregon Tort Claims Act for acts within their duties, altering liability exposure and potential compensation eligibility.
Basis: Bill text · Source: B-Engrossed
Agencies face a 180-day compliance window to draft, adopt, and publicly post policies; failure to address written objections triggers injunction risk.
Basis: Bill text · Source: B-Engrossed
Cooperation with federal partners requires internal vetting against prohibited criteria; the attestation process is voluntary but provides a statutory defense against Section 8 violations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: B-Engrossed
Litigation risk shifts to circuit courts for injunctions; the Department of Administrative Services Insurance Fund bears indeterminate costs from potential damages, though revenue impact is classified as minimal.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Oregon residents and civil rights advocates
A community successfully uses the injunction cause of action to force a county sheriff's department to immediately cease sharing immigration status data with federal agents following an unlawful request, preventing mass deportations based on protected speech or association.
Basis: Inferred · Source: B-Engrossed
Tactical law enforcement units and election security personnel
A SWAT unit operating in extreme weather or conducting a high-risk warrant service is forced to remove face coverings within 250 feet of a ballot drop box during election tabulation due to the absolute prohibition, creating a visible security vulnerability and public safety risk during a critical period.
Basis: Inferred · Source: B-Engrossed
The text legally permits voluntary attestation acceptance and unrestricted cooperation without it. Weak enforcement or duty creep could enable misclassification of routine duties as exempt tactical work, or overreliance on blanket attestations to circumvent substantive prohibitions.
Sources · B-Engrossed
The measure prioritizes transparency and constitutional safeguards in law enforcement interactions over operational flexibility and intergovernmental cooperation efficiency.
Enhanced public accountability and clearer officer identification during encounters.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Statutory barrier against discriminatory or unconstitutional federal assistance, preserving state sovereignty over local law enforcement resources.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Administrative burden for agencies to draft, post, and maintain compliance policies within a strict timeline.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Potential friction with federal partners over cooperation protocols, alongside litigation costs and rigid restrictions that may complicate legitimate tactical or emergency operations.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
The Senate amendment replaces the original Section 10 text with a clarified attestation framework. It explicitly states that receiving an attestation does not violate cooperation prohibitions, and clarifies that obtaining an attestation is entirely optional for state or local agencies cooperating with federal or out-of-state partners. The amendment does not alter the underlying identification requirements, facial covering restrictions, policy mandates, or cause of action provisions.
Clarifies that cooperation with federal/out-of-state agencies is permissible after receiving an attestation, and explicitly removes any obligation to obtain one.
Reduces ambiguity around intergovernmental liability and creates a voluntary safe harbor for agencies navigating federal requests.
Sources · Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Tradeoff: The amendment shifts the cooperation framework from a potentially ambiguous prohibition to an explicit, voluntary safe harbor, balancing state sovereignty concerns with practical intergovernmental flexibility.
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the provided bill text, official fiscal/revenue statements, and staff measure summaries. Inferences are explicitly labeled and bounded by the statutory framework.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
The amendment makes obtaining a sworn attestation from federal or out-of-state law enforcement agencies entirely optional for Oregon state and local agencies before cooperating with them on investigations, arrests, or apprehensions. If an agency chooses to cooperate after receiving such an attestation, it gains a statutory shield against violating the bill’s prohibitions on assisting operations targeting protected speech, association, or constitutionally protected classes. The material consequence is that cooperation remains legally permissible without the attestation, but agencies may use it as a defensive record if challenged under the bill’s new restrictions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A11 — 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 amendment likely aims to reduce administrative friction for routine interagency cooperation by removing any perceived mandate to collect attestations, while preserving a voluntary compliance mechanism that agencies can use to demonstrate good faith if their cooperation is later legally challenged.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A11 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Gain a voluntary, perjury-backed attestation option to document that cooperating requests do not target protected activities, while retaining full discretion to cooperate without it.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A11 — proposed amendment
May be asked, but never required, to provide sworn attestations regarding the nature of their operations when seeking Oregon agency cooperation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A11 — proposed amendment
Gain a statutory framework that potentially limits how state and local agencies assist federal or out-of-state operations targeting protected classes or speech, with an optional attestation process that could increase transparency or create a compliance hurdle depending on agency practice.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A11 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Agencies may develop internal protocols to request or accept attestations, though none are mandated. Federal and out-of-state agencies might adjust request formats to include perjury statements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A11 — proposed amendment
Direct fiscal impact is minimal, but indirect costs could arise if agencies allocate staff to process attestation requests or defend against injunctions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Enforcement relies on a private right of action for injunctions, with a defense available if compelled by court process. The provision lowers legal risk for Oregon agencies cooperating on federal operations by providing a clear statutory safe harbor, though it does not guarantee immunity from constitutional challenges or federal preemption claims.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A11 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Oregon county sheriff’s department
Routinely assists federal immigration operations. By voluntarily requesting and receiving sworn attestations for each request, the department successfully defends against a civil rights injunction, demonstrating compliance with the bill’s intent without disrupting interagency workflows.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A11 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Oregon city police department
A federal agency repeatedly requests cooperation but refuses to provide attestations. The city, fearing litigation or political backlash, halts all cooperation on complex multi-jurisdictional cases such as violent fugitive apprehensions, creating public safety gaps and strained intergovernmental relations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A11 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
inference
Sources · Amendment -A11 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
The amendment balances administrative flexibility and interagency cooperation against the risk that a voluntary attestation process may become a procedural formality that undermines substantive civil rights protections. Upsides include reduced bureaucratic friction for routine cooperation while preserving a defensive compliance tool. Downsides include the potential for agencies to rely on unverified federal statements rather than conducting independent legal reviews of prohibited operations.
Reduces administrative friction for routine interagency cooperation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A11 — proposed amendment
Preserves a defensive compliance tool that may lower litigation exposure for agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
May encourage reliance on unverified federal statements rather than independent legal review of prohibited operations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A11 — proposed amendment
Could create intergovernmental friction if federal agencies refuse to provide attestations, potentially disrupting multi-jurisdictional public safety operations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
high confidence. Analysis is strictly grounded in the supplied amendment text, staff summaries, and fiscal statements. No external speculation or legislative intent assumptions are included.
Decision brief generation failed. The existing briefs were preserved and this version can be retried.
If adopted, the amendment would mandate visible identification and generally prohibit facial coverings for all law enforcement officers operating in Oregon, restrict how state and local agencies cooperate with federal or out-of-state investigators on certain cases, require public posting of compliance policies within 180 days, create a private right of action for circuit court injunctions, and clarify tort liability for Civil Defense Force volunteers. Material consequences include uniform and policy procurement costs, potential constitutional litigation over the application of state rules to federal officers, altered operational protocols for tactical and election security units, and expanded legal exposure for public entities facing compliance objections.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Staff Measure Summary A
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 may aim to address public concerns regarding unidentifiable officers during sensitive operations by establishing strict visibility rules and adding an absolute prohibition on masked personnel near ballot locations during vote tabulation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Must procure identifiable uniforms, draft and publicly post facial covering policies within 180 days, train personnel on new restrictions, and establish internal review processes for federal or out-of-state assistance requests. Agencies face circuit court injunctions if policies fail to meet statutory requirements after a 180-day correction window.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Must wear uniforms clearly displaying a last name or ID number, agency name, and badge while on duty. Generally prohibited from wearing facial coverings except for undercover work, tactical protection, extreme weather, or medical necessity. Officers lose the ability to rely on generalized safety concerns as justification for masking.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Must adopt policies within 180 days prohibiting employees from intentionally assisting federal or out-of-state agencies on investigations tied to protected speech, association, membership in protected classes, or unlawful searches/seizures. Cooperation is permitted only if the requesting agency provides a sworn attestation confirming compliance with these restrictions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Gain status as agents of a public body under the Oregon Tort Claims Act for acts within the course and scope of their duties, while remaining uncompensated volunteers without state service or employment benefits.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Gain standing to submit written objections to agency policies they believe do not conform to statutory requirements, with a pathway to seek circuit court injunctions if deficiencies are not corrected within 180 days.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Behavior and obligations shift toward standardized uniform procurement, mandatory policy drafting, and internal compliance reviews. Officers must remove masks during routine patrols but may retain them for tactical raids, extreme weather, or medical protection. Public universities must restrict employee cooperation with certain federal investigations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Costs include minimal direct revenue impact per legislative staff, but indeterminate expenses for policy development, training, uniform updates, and potential litigation or DAS Insurance Fund claims. The measure does not create a criminal penalty for mask violations; enforcement relies on injunctions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Enforcement and access are governed by a 180-day objection window followed by circuit court injunctions. The absolute prohibition on masked personnel within 250 feet of ballot locations during vote tabulation may restrict security deployment options without clear medical or weather exceptions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Tactical response units during high-risk operations
SWAT or CBRNE teams could legally wear full-face protective gear while conducting hostage rescues or active shooter responses, maintaining both officer safety and public accountability through clearly visible agency identification on their uniforms.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Election security personnel during severe weather
Officers guarding a ballot drop-off site during a blizzard could be forced to remove face coverings under the absolute 250-foot election zone rule, risking hypothermia or impaired vision while attempting to comply with the statute.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
The distinction relies on the statutory exceptions versus the potential for duty creep or misclassification of standard operations under tactical or protected-activity categories.
Sources · Amendment -7 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The measure trades operational flexibility and potential constitutional compliance for standardized officer visibility and restricted intergovernmental cooperation on sensitive investigations.
Enhances public accountability by ensuring officers are identifiable, establishes clear boundaries for interagency cooperation to protect constitutionally guaranteed rights, and clarifies tort liability for volunteer defense forces.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Imposes uniform and policy compliance burdens, creates legal uncertainty around applying state rules to federal officers, and may disrupt tactical operations or election security if exceptions are narrowly construed or litigated.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text and official legislative staff summaries. Constitutional and operational impacts are framed as statutory requirements rather than enacted law.
If adopted, the amendment would mandate that all law enforcement agencies operating in Oregon maintain and publicly post policies requiring sworn officers to visibly display their agency name plus a name or badge number while on duty, and would generally prohibit officers from wearing facial coverings that obscure identity. It extends these visibility rules to federal and out-of-state officers working in Oregon, requires agencies to update uniforms within 180 days or the next normal replacement cycle, and restricts state and local public bodies from cooperating with federal or out-of-state law enforcement unless the requesting agency provides a sworn attestation that the request does not target protected conduct, protected classes, or unconstitutional surveillance. The measure creates a circuit court challenge process for noncompliant policies, expands tort liability coverage for volunteers in the Oregon Civil Defense Force, and declares an emergency effective on passage.
Basis: Official analysis · 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 text emphasizes transparency, accountability, and public trust as foundational policy goals, explicitly rejecting generalized fear as justification for masking restrictions. This suggests the measure was drafted to standardize officer visibility across all jurisdictions operating in Oregon and to create statutory guardrails against law enforcement cooperation that targets constitutionally protected activities or classes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Must draft, adopt, and publicly post written policies on officer identification and facial coverings within 180 days; update uniforms to meet visibility standards; and establish internal procedures to evaluate federal/out-of-state cooperation requests against constitutional protections.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Subject to the same visible identification requirements as state/local officers while on duty; must provide sworn attestations before receiving assistance or resources from Oregon public bodies for investigations, arrests, or task force operations.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Gained a formal mechanism to object to agency policies that fail to meet statutory requirements, with a 180-day correction window followed by the right to seek judicial determination in circuit court.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Explicitly classified as agents of a public body under the Oregon Tort Claims Act for acts within their duties, while remaining ineligible for state compensation, workers' compensation, or employment benefits unless otherwise provided by law.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Retain authority to enact stricter identification or masking policies; must adopt internal cooperation policies within 180 days and may be subject to injunctions if they violate the measure's restrictions on assisting federal/out-of-state operations.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Agencies will incur administrative costs to draft compliant policies, update uniform procurement cycles, and train personnel on the new visibility standards and cooperation attestation requirements.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
The 180-day policy adoption deadline and uniform compliance window create a phased implementation timeline, with local governments permitted to accelerate deadlines for their jurisdiction.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Public bodies and law enforcement agencies will need to revise existing memoranda of understanding and task force agreements to include attestation requirements and constitutional compliance clauses, potentially altering long-standing cross-jurisdictional partnerships.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
The measure establishes a private right of action for injunctions and expands tort exposure for Civil Defense Force volunteers, which may increase litigation activity and require agencies to adjust risk management and insurance planning.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Public and civil liberties advocates
During large-scale civil unrest, universal officer visibility and strict masking prohibitions eliminate unmarked police impersonation risks, while the attestation requirement legally blocks state resources from being used in immigration or political surveillance operations, preserving constitutional protections at scale.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Federal task forces and local agencies relying on federal support
Federal or out-of-state agencies decline to operate in Oregon due to the attestation burden or masking restrictions, leading to a withdrawal of joint task force resources, reduced capacity for cross-jurisdictional crime investigations, and increased operational friction between state and federal partners.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The statutory language permits narrow exceptions but relies on agency self-reporting and public objection mechanisms for enforcement, creating a gap where discretionary classification could undermine the transparency mandate.
Sources · Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
The measure prioritizes universal officer visibility and constitutional guardrails against law enforcement cooperation by imposing uniform compliance deadlines, attestation requirements, and expanded tort liability, which strengthens public accountability but risks operational friction with federal partners and increases administrative and litigation costs for agencies.
Standardized identification reduces impersonation risk and enhances public trust during high-visibility or volatile situations.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Explicit attestation requirements and cooperation restrictions create statutory barriers against law enforcement activities targeting protected speech, association, or membership in protected classes.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Clarifying Civil Defense Force volunteers as Tort Claims Act agents provides predictable liability coverage while maintaining their non-employee status.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Uniform replacement and policy development deadlines may strain agency budgets, particularly for smaller jurisdictions with limited procurement cycles.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
The attestation mechanism and cooperation restrictions could complicate or delay federal support for investigations, potentially creating jurisdictional gaps in cross-border crime enforcement.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Expanded injunction authority and tort liability exposure may increase litigation frequency, with fiscal impacts remaining indeterminate until case law establishes precedent.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
high confidence. The analysis is grounded in the supplied proposed amendment text and official legislative fiscal/revenue statements. Uncertainties are explicitly labeled as unknowns rather than findings.
If adopted, the amendment would mandate visible identification and restrict facial coverings for all law enforcement agencies operating in Oregon (including federal and out-of-state), require public bodies to adopt policies limiting cooperation with certain federal or out-of-state investigations unless a sworn attestation is provided, mandate public disclosure of cross-jurisdictional task force agreements, classify Civil Defense Force volunteers as tort agents under state law, and create private civil causes of action for damages and injunctions with mandatory attorney fees. The measure takes effect immediately upon passage.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Staff analysis notes the measure responds to increased nationwide immigration enforcement operations since 2025, where federal agents reportedly wore face masks and failed to identify themselves, prompting several jurisdictions to propose laws regulating officer masking and identification.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The explicit prohibitions on assisting operations targeting immigration status, NSPM-7 surveillance objectives, and protected classes, combined with the attestation requirement, suggest a legislative hypothesis aimed at restricting Oregon’s administrative role in federal immigration enforcement and shielding civil liberties from perceived constitutional overreach.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Must draft, adopt, and publicly post policies on officer identification and facial coverings, update uniforms/gear to meet visibility standards, and publicly disclose task force agreements within strict deadlines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Legally prohibited from intentionally assisting specific federal or out-of-state investigations without a sworn attestation, requiring policy revisions and request vetting procedures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Statutorily reclassified as agents of a public body under the Oregon Tort Claims Act for acts within their duties, altering liability exposure while explicitly denying them compensation or benefits unless otherwise provided by law.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Granted standing to formally object to agency policies and file circuit court actions for violations, alongside access to publicly posted cross-jurisdictional agreements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Agencies face immediate administrative obligations to draft compliant policies and potentially procure new identification gear within 180 days. Public bodies must implement vetting protocols for federal/out-of-state requests, which may delay cross-jurisdictional cooperation. The private right of action, combined with mandatory attorney fee awards to prevailing plaintiffs, significantly increases litigation risk and defense costs for public entities. Volunteers gain tort liability exposure without corresponding compensation benefits. The emergency clause triggers immediate compliance requirements upon passage.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Members of the public and oversight bodies
A federal immigration enforcement operation targeting a protected political assembly is lawfully blocked because the requesting agency cannot provide a valid attestation, preventing unlawful detention of Oregon residents and preserving First Amendment rights.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Law enforcement agencies (state, local, federal, out-of-state)
A legitimate cross-jurisdictional tactical response to an active threat requires out-of-state officers to wear protective face shields for chemical exposure; strict enforcement of the facial covering prohibition and subsequent policy objection litigation delays deployment, increasing imminent risk to officers and civilians.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits agencies to refuse cooperation based on constitutional grounds and allows exceptions via sworn attestation. However, weak enforcement or subjective interpretation of terms like generalized fear or protected class could enable duty creep, where agencies broadly refuse lawful federal requests under the guise of civil liberties protection. Conversely, overreliance on the attestation exception could allow questionable operations to bypass substantive scrutiny if public bodies accept attestations without independent verification.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The measure prioritizes transparency and civil liberty protections by restricting anonymous policing and limiting state cooperation with certain federal enforcement actions, but it does so at the cost of administrative burden, potential delays in cross-jurisdictional law enforcement coordination, and increased litigation exposure for public entities and volunteers. Upsides include enhanced public accountability and explicit constitutional safeguards; downsides include operational friction, compliance costs, and expanded private litigation pathways.
Enhanced public accountability through mandatory policy posting and task force agreement disclosure.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Explicit constitutional safeguards limiting state participation in immigration enforcement and surveillance operations targeting protected classes or speech.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Operational friction and delays in cross-jurisdictional law enforcement coordination due to attestation requirements and policy objection litigation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Increased compliance costs for uniform/gear updates, policy drafting, and litigation defense, alongside expanded private litigation pathways that may overwhelm public entity resources.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
high confidence. The analysis is grounded in the explicit text of the proposed amendment, official staff summaries, and fiscal impact statements. Inferences are clearly labeled and bounded to the supplied text.
44 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 4138 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
Substantial replacement
What the document says to change
Delete lines 5 through 16 and delete pages 2 through 10 and insert:
Inferred policy relationships
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -3
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 133.005, ORS 174.109, ORS 181, ORS 240.015, ORS 30.260, Effective date.
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -7
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 133.005, ORS 174.109, ORS 240.015, ORS 30.260, ORS 399.035, Effective date.
This is a text-based early signal, not an official statement that one amendment changes the other.
Official records (1)
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Representative Farrah Chaichi, Representative Thuy Tran, Senator James Manning Jr., Representative Tom Andersen, Representative Willy Chotzen, Representative Cyrus Javadi, Representative Susan McLain, Representative Lesly Muñoz, Representative Travis Nelson, Representative Rob Nosse, Representative Lamar Wise, Senator Lew Frederick, Senator Khanh Pham, Senator Wlnsvey Campos, Senator Floyd Prozanski
Regular sponsors: Representative Lisa Fragala, Representative Mark Gamba, Representative David Gomberg, Representative Dacia Grayber, Representative Sarah McDonald, Representative Ricki Ruiz, Senator Sara Gelser Blouin, Senator Jeff Golden, Senator Kayse Jama, Senator Courtney Neron Misslin, Senator Deb Patterson, Senator Lisa Reynolds, Representative Nathan Sosa, Representative Nancy Nathanson, Representative Jules Walters, Representative Pam Marsh, Representative Daniel Nguyen, Representative Shannon Isadore, Representative Jason Kropf, Representative Zach Hudson, Senator Janeen Sollman
House carrier
Representative Farrah Chaichi
Third Reading Of House Bills · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Wlnsvey Campos
Third Reading Of House Measures · Version B
House carrier
Representative Jason Kropf
Possible Consideration Of Senate Amendments · 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.
The artifact has broad business or technology relevance, but it does not identify a concrete effect on Yex Labs LLC.
74% confidence · deterministic fallback
44 events
Full timeline
44 entries shown.
Chapter 66, (2026 Laws): Effective date March 31, 2026.
Governor signed.
President signed.
Speaker signed.
House concurred in Senate amendments and repassed bill.
Ayes, 34; Nays, 18--Boice, Breese-Iverson, Bunch, Cate, Diehl, Edwards, Elmer, Harbick, Helfrich, Lewis, Mannix, McIntire, Osborne, Reschke, Scharf, Skarlatos, Smith G, Yunker; Excused, 5--Hartman, Javadi, Levy B, Owens, Valderrama; Excused for Business of the House, 3--Boshart Davis, Nelson, Wright.
Third reading. Carried by Campos. Passed.
Ayes, 18; Nays, 10--Anderson, Girod, Linthicum, McLane, Nash, Robinson, Smith DB, Starr, Thatcher, Weber; Excused, 2--Drazan, Hayden.
Carried over to 03-05 by unanimous consent.
Second reading.
Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments to the A-Eng. bill. (Printed B-Eng.)
Work Session held.
IS_Impact HB 4138 A11
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -A11 adopted
IS_Impact HB 4138 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -A11 proposed
IS_Impact HB 4138 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Public Hearing held.
Referred to Rules.
First reading. Referred to President's desk.
Third reading. Carried by Chaichi. Passed.
Ayes, 36; Nays, 19--Boice, Boshart Davis, Bunch, Diehl, Edwards, Elmer, Harbick, Helfrich, Levy B, Lewis, Mannix, McIntire, Osborne, Owens, Reschke, Skarlatos, Smith G, Wallan, Yunker; Excused, 3--Breese-Iverson, Hartman, Scharf; Excused for Business of the House, 2--Cate, Wright.
Motion to refer to Ways and Means failed.
Ayes, 19; Nays, 36--Andersen, Bowman, Chaichi, Chotzen, Dobson, Evans, Fragala, Gamba, Gomberg, Grayber, Helm, Hudson, Isadore, Javadi, Kropf, Levy E, Lively, Marsh, McDonald, McLain, Munoz, Nathanson, Nelson, Nguyen D, Nosse, Pham H, Rieke Smith, Ruiz, Sanchez, Smith G, Sosa, Tran, Walters, Watanabe, Wise, Speaker Fahey; Excused, 3--Breese-Iverson, Hartman, Scharf; Excused for Business of the House, 2--Valderrama, Wright.
Carried over to February 24, 2026 Calendar by virtue of adjournment.
Rules suspended. Carried over to February 23, 2026 Calendar.
Second reading.
House Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be printed A-Engrossed.
Work Session held.
IS_Impact HB 4138 7
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -7 adopted
Public Hearing held.
Amendment -3 proposed
Amendment -1 proposed
Referred to Judiciary.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
y 6 and public trust; and 7 “Whereas in 2021, the Legislative Assembly passed House Bill 3355, es- 8 tablishing visible personal and agency identification requirements for
nagement working in cities with a population of 10 over 60,000; and 11 “Whereas House Bill 3355 (2021) also improved transparency regarding 12 all state and local law enforcem
sking and identification of law enforcement officers. This includes California (Senate Bill 627, the “No Secret Police Act,” passed; and Senate Bill 805, passed), New York (S0
sking and identification of law enforcement officers. This includes California (Senate Bill 627, the “No Secret Police Act,” passed; and Senate Bill 805, passed), New York (S0
s includes California (Senate Bill 627, the “No Secret Police Act,” passed; and Senate Bill 805, passed), New York (S08462), Tennessee (SB2011), and the U.S. Congress (H. R. 4
s includes California (Senate Bill 627, the “No Secret Police Act,” passed; and Senate Bill 805, passed), New York (S08462), Tennessee (SB2011), and the U.S. Congress (H. R. 4
olice Act,” passed; and Senate Bill 805, passed), New York (S08462), Tennessee (SB2011), and the U.S. Congress (H. R. 4004; and S. 2212). The federal government chall
olice Act,” passed; and Senate Bill 805, passed), New York (S08462), Tennessee (SB2011), and the U.S. Congress (H. R. 4004; and S. 2212). The federal government chall
“Digest: The Act sets police ID rules and limits the actions of public employees when working with U.S. or out-of-state law enforcement. The Act also allows a person to seek an injunction when the rules are violated. The Act goes into effect when the Governor signs it. (Flesch Readability Score: 62.5). Requires law enforcement agencies to require officers to wear uniforms with specified identifying information. Specifies exceptions. Requires law enforcement agencies to enact policies prohibiting the wearing of facial coverings by officers except in specified circumstances. Prohibits the wearing of facial coverings by law enforcement officers except in specified circumstances. Prohibits employees of state and local law enforcement agencies and other public bodies in this state from participating in certain actions. Directs state and local law enforcement agencies and other public bodies to enact policies prohibiting engagement in certain actions. Provides that volunteers in a civil defense force are agents of a public body for purposes of the Oregon Tort Claims Act. Allows a person harmed by violations of certain provisions to seek an injunction. Declares an emergency, effective on passage.”
Oregon updates this record in place. This page uses the latest text; an exact original snapshot is unavailable.
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.