RICHARDSON, Presiding Judge.
The City of Lake Oswego appeals the circuit court's order granting defendant's motion to suppress.
Defendant was driving his van in Lake Oswego in February, 1984, when it quit running due to mechanical problems. He walked two blocks to the police station and used a telephone attached to the outside entryway to seek assistance. The phone is a direct line to the Lake Oswego Communication Center, which routinely records all incoming radio communications and telecommunications. The police dispatcher who received the call notified an officer that a call about a disabled vehicle had been received from a person who sounded intoxicated. Defendant was subsequently arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants and charged with violation of former ORS 487.540 (now ORS 813.010). The municipal court granted his motion to suppress the recording of the conversation, and the circuit court affirmed.
The circuit court held the recording inadmissible, because it is prohibited by ORS 165.540(1)(e), which states:
The city contends that the circuit court erred when it concluded that the recorded message was only admissible if defendant had consented to the recording. It argues that the court found, by implication, that the recording was a "conversation" rather than a "telecommunication," and therefore applied the wrong statutory provision in determining the recording's admissibility.
"Conversation" and "telecommunication" are defined by ORS 165.535:
The statute only requires consent from one participant to a telecommunication, while all participants in a conversation must be informed that it is being recorded. The relevant portions of ORS 165.540(1) provide:
It is clear that defendant's call to the police dispatcher was a telecommunication and his consent was not necessary, because one participant, the police dispatcher, consented.
Reversed and remanded for trial.