- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
- Date Filed: 02-20-2020
- Case #: A164165
- Judge(s)/Court Below: DeHoog, P.J. for the Court; DeVore, J.; & Aoyagi, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner sought judicial review following termination of Employment Related Day Care subsidy payments. On appeal, Petitioner argued that DHS erred when it determined they failed to disclose its owner had been subject to an “arrest” as required under OAR 461-165-0180(7)(h)(A)(July 1, 2016). Petitioner asserted that ORS 133.005(1) was the controlling definition for “arrest” and therefore did not fail to disclose because its owner was only booked and released, never physically restrained or formally in custody. In response, DHS argued that ordering the owner to complete that process subjected her to at least constructive restraint, rendering its interpretation of “arrest” plausible, warranting deference. “When an agency has interpreted its own rules, ‘we give significant deference to that interpretation and are required to affirm it if it is “plausible,” [as long as it’s consistent with itself, its context or other source of law].’” Boatwright v. Dept. of Human Services, 293 Or App 301, 304-305 (2018). Because administrative rules do not define “arrest,” the Court analyzed the word under its plain meaning, legal meaning, statutory meaning and caselaw. The Court found that none of the definitions precluded “constructive” restraint or custody in the word’s understanding, nor that the book-and-release process itself qualified as actual or constructive restraint. Therefore, the Court concluded that DHS’s interpretation of “arrest” under OAR 461-165-0180(7)(h)(A) was plausible. Affirmed.