eyes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.117

This non-commercial archival site documents historically public records. See Disclaimer, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy for details.
Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Corrections Policy
This non-commercial site archives only historically public records and documents changes in their public availability. The records originate from either government sources or commercial aggregators who source government documents. No representation is made as to current legal status. Publication is protected under Bahr v. Statesman Journal Co., 624 P.2d 664 (Or. Ct. App. 1981), and the First Amendment. This website summarizes publicly available records as they existed on the dates reviewed. Additional records may exist that are unavailable to the public or were not located. All content is presented without malice.
Oregon law (ORS 137.225) permits eligible individuals to have certain convictions set aside and official records sealed to support rehabilitation. Private preservation and commentary on historically public records remains constitutionally protected (Bahr v. Statesman Journal Co.).

In July 2025, internet searches found these official public legal documents from the Oregon State Law Library and other legal websites.

And then it became more interesting to watch those documents being updated on the internet in almost real-time.

You can read for yourself and make up your own mind what to think.

According to the relator's opening brief in State v. Blok, S059925, Count 4 charged first-degree sexual abuse (ORS 163.427) as a Measure 11 offense, relating to conduct after Blok turned 15, which at the time carried a mandatory, non-reducible 75-month (6 years, 3 months) prison sentence plus 3 years post-prison supervision — regardless of prior acts before age 15 or the 10-year delay in charging. It would also most likely require lifetime sex-offender registration in the State of Oregon at the time of the case.

Commercial aggregator data sourced from government records and Oregon Supreme Court documents describe incidents (at ages 13–14) that most likely would not increase that 75-month term but might have been cited as a “pattern of abuse” to justify consecutive time on non-Measure 11 counts or stricter conditions. As observed in practice, Oregon judges almost always run sentencing concurrent in single-victim youthful-offender cases, yielding a total of 75 months.

The public records reviewed for this page did not show an incarceration record, and the page does not claim to know the full procedural explanation for that result. This website cannot determine from those records alone why that is the case. In some cases, prosecutors may resolve charges through plea bargaining or charge reduction, but this page does not establish that happened here unless a specific source says so. If later court records exist that are unavailable to the public, they could affect this interpretation.

In short: The page notes the absence of an incarceration record in the materials reviewed, but it does not establish the ultimate disposition or whether any later set-aside occurred. If a later set-aside (under ORS 137.225) occurred, that would need to be supported by a specific record; this page should not imply that result without proof.

Summary of Material Facts At the time set for the hearing on Tyler Bloks Motion to Reduce Bail, Washington County Circuit Court Judge Wipper imposed as a condition of Tyler’s security release that he have no contact with his father, who is his best friend and closest advisor. Tyler, now 24 years old, faces Measure 11 penalties for conduct he allegedly committed as a child. The indictment charges one count of first degree unlawful sexual penetration and three counts of first degree sexual abuse. The charges relate to alleged sexual contact between Tyler and his younger cousin six to ten years ago, when both were minor children. With the no-contact condition in place, Tyler faces the burden of navigating his legal defense without the wisdom and emotional support of his father. At the hearing on Tyler’s Motion to Reduce Bail, the state asked the court to impose the “standard” supervisory conditions recommended by the Washington County Circuit Court Release Office in Measure 11 cases. These 'standard' conditions are cookie-cutter conditions recommended without consideration of the facts presented in individual cases, and include a blanket no contact order with witnesses. During argument at the hearing, the state identified Relator’s father, , as a potential state witness. The state has not served with a subpoena. Defense counsel’s review of the state’s discovery reveals that is not a fact witness to any of the alleged abuse. The state did not argue or present any evidence that Tyler’s contact with his father presented a danger to the victim or the community. No matter, Judge Wipper ordered that Relator have no contact with his father. Tyler posted bail and executed the Security Release Agreement (ER-1). Pursuant to Judge Wipper’s order, the Security Release Agreement requires that Tyler have no contact with

In "Exhibit D" this person passed the Bar Exam but did not receive a Favorable Recommendation immediately.

Factual and Procedural Background The state charged relator with several sexual offenses in Washington County Circuit Court. (Att 1 (Indictment)).1 All of the charges relate to conduct occurring between 2001 and 2005 between relator and his young cousin. One of the offenses qualifies as a Measure 11 offense.2 In November 2011, the trial court held a bail hearing to determine the amount of relator’s bail and whether to impose conditions on his release. (Att 5).3 Prior to the hearing, the court reviewed a “Confidential Release Report” that recommended several conditions, including a condition that relator not have contact with the state’s witnesses. (Att 2).

The original tip was found on Stocktwits 2025 July 27.

The prosecutor responded to relator’s arguments by describing to the court the particulars of the alleged crimes, including the fact that they occurred when the victim was between seven and ten years old. He then described an incident in which relator supposedly apologized to the victim: 'The victim’s father and defendant’s father confronted defendant some time later at a family gathering. The defendant apologized to the victim for treating her as he did and the family thought this was over at that point.' The prosecutor explained that, although the family apparently knew about the alleged abuse at the time of the apology, they did not report it, and the police had learned of it through a mandatory reporter. The prosecutor ended by suggesting that the declaration by the victim’s father that relator had submitted to the court reflected the entire family’s inappropriate view that a resolution within the family was all that mattered: 'The family members have known about this for some time and it is no surprise to me that the victim’s father is declaring in the exhibit presented by counsel that he doesn’t think that defendant is a risk because, as far as the family is concerned, defendant apologized and was forgiven.'

The original filing PDF document properties as observed and downloaded on 2025 July 27

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)

The filing PDF document properties as observed and downloaded on 2025 October 08

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)

Side-by-Side comparison of the two different versions.

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)

The Adverse Party's Answering brief filing PDF document properties as observed and downloaded on 2025 July 27

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)

The Adverse Party's Answering Brief filing PDF document properties as observed and downloaded on 2025 October 11

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)

Side-by-Side comparison of the two different versions.

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)

This topic was published by the same person.

Oregon House Bill 3025 was signed into law on June 26, 2015 and Oregon became one of 23 states in the United States to enact ban-the-box laws restricting employers from inquiring about an applicants criminal background during the initial stages of the application process. (Ban-the-box refers to the box on employment applications where an applicant indicates whether they have a criminal history.) Effective January 1, 2016, covered Oregon employers are now prohibited from requiring an applicant: To disclose a criminal conviction on an employment application; To disclose, prior to an initial interview, a criminal conviction; or If no interview is conducted, to disclose, prior to a conditional offer of employment, a criminal conviction. The new ban-the-box law applies to all employers, unless the employer falls within one of the following exemptions: Employers who are required by federal, state or local law to consider an applicants criminal history (e.g. pharmacists, bank employees, teachers); Employers who are law enforcement agencies (e.g. police or district attorneys); Employers in the criminal justice system (not defined by the new law); and Employers seeking a non-employee volunteer. Importantly, the new law does not prevent an employer from considering an employee’s criminal convictions when making the hiring decisions. Oregon employers may still notify applicants that they will later be required to disclose convictions or that a criminal background check will be performed as part of the hiring process. It is also important to understand that the new law does not provide an applicant with a private right of action against a covered employer. Applicant must file administrative charges with and pursue remedies through the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

What is an Oregon Measure 11 offense and the mandatory penalties ?

In November 1994, voters passed Ballot Measure 11, now codified in ORS Chapter 137, which required mandatory minimum prison sentences for “serious crimes against persons.” Measure 11 originally applied to sixteen offenses and has since been amended to include a total of twenty-one. The crimes which fall under Measure 11 and the mandatory minimum sentence they carry are as follows. Persons convicted of Measure 11 offenses receive no parole or reduction of sentence for good behavior while in prison. Measure 11 also mandates that juveniles age 15 and older charged with the felonies listed above be tried as adults. In 1994, the voters adopted a companion measure to Measure 11, Ballot Measure 10. Measure 10 allows the Legislature to change Measure 11, but only by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. Since its enactment into law, the Legislature has made several changes to Measure 11. The 1997 Legislature passed Senate Bill 1049, which softened Measure 11 by allowing judges to impose lesser sentences for Assault II, Kidnapping II and Robbery II if the offender has a minimal criminal history. Senate Bill 1049 also added to Measure 11 the crimes of compelling prostitution, using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, and some types of arson in the first degree. The 2001 Legislature passed House Bill 2379 which, among other things, allows: (a) the Department of Corrections to release an inmate up to three days prior to the inmate’s release date if the inmate otherwise would be released on a week-end or holiday; (b) a court to impose a sentencing guidelines sentence, rather than Measure 11, for Rape II, Sodomy II, Unlawful Sexual Penetration II, and Sexual Abuse I if: (i) the victim is not under 12; (ii) the defendant is not more than 5 years older than the victim; (iii) consent was not obtained by violence or threat of violence; and (iv) the defendant does not have a criminal record for Measure 11 offenses or certain other listed crimes.

What are examples of Oregon Measure 11 sentencing ?

Examples of Measure 11 cases and sentencing

Certain online references to the case that previously existed are no longer available at their original URLs (archived versions preserved here)

This document used to be available but no longer is present on the live website.

https://wlo.willamette.edu/orsupreme/2012/09/state-v-blok.html

Archived versions remain available via the Internet Archive.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250805170550/https://wlo.willamette.edu/orsupreme/2012/09/state-v-blok.html

Certain online references to the case that previously existed are no longer available at their original URLs.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/834808/state-v-blok/

Archived versions remain available via the Internet Archive.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250815214405/https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/834808/state-v-blok/

In the archived version, the Court's Opinion heading and article heading read "TYLER ANTHONY BLOK" and "Blok", respectively, but now reads "T.A.B"; however, the URL still maintains the "state-v-blok".

The "PDF" selection still contains in big letters at the top - "TYLER ANTHONY BLOK".

Another document no longer available from the State of Oregon legal repository surrounding this case.

The document used to be here.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S059925.pdf

The document has been moved here and has been modified/redacted similiar to others.

https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll3/id/1001/rec/1

And again, archived versions remain available via the Internet Archive.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150905192030/http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S059925.pdf

And yet another web page no longer lists records concerning arrests on 12/15/2011.

The record used to be listed here near the bottom of the page.

https://www.menstoppingviolence.org/people/tyler-blok/

And yet again, archived versions remain available via the Internet Archive.

https://web.archive.org/web/20251126225609/https://www.menstoppingviolence.org/people/tyler-blok/

Not directly related to these cases but nonetheless interesting. Court records showing parents were sued by the attorney firm that represented Blok shortly after Oregon Supreme Court Opinion issued in case S059925. (Available from OREGON JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT - Online Records Search - search for "130811159".)

130811159 | HOEVET BOISE & OLSON PC VS. MIKEL BLOK

This commercially available redacted background report's "RECORD 3" shows disposition rather than just charges: two entries — one under case C112414CR/02 and one under "2000 CR A 011676" — both list "SEX ABUSE 1 NEW ATTEMPT" with a disposition of "SENTENCED".

Tyler_Anthony_Blok-Redacted-final.pdf

Various links of interest that either directly cite the cases or provide additional information:

https://www.cetient.com/case/state-v-macbale-mandamus-proceeding-834837
https://www.opb.org/pdf/KRISTOF%20opinion_1645115322212.pdf
https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2022/s069165.html
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/or-supreme-court/2163200.html
https://www.studocu.com/in/document/gujarat-law-society-university/studies-of-law/constitutional-law-2012-15/54457146
https://www.leagle.com/decision/inadvorco120727000389
https://www.leagle.com/decision/inorco20120920563
https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2018/s065165.html
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/or-supreme-court/1962320.html
https://app.midpage.ai/case/fredrickson-v-starbucks-corp-6534872
https://www.scribd.com/document/422358845/Constitutional-Law-2012-PDFDrive-com
https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Supreme_Court_September_20,_2012
https://www.anylaw.com/case/state-of-oregon-v-t-a-b/oregon-supreme-court/09-19-2012/OsXTXmYBTlTomsSBSFSy
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2499174/state-v-blok/
ttps://storage.courtlistener.com/harvard_pdf/834808.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2012/09/20/state_v._blok_3.pdf
https://www.osbar.org/_docs/sections/constitution/conlaw_spring13.pdf
p17027coll7_826.pdf
834808.pdf
S059925.pdf
p17027coll7_2341.pdf
p17027coll3_1001.pdf
p17027coll10_75.pdf
Lambert-Clan-2010Aug15.PNG
Ban-The-Box-Article.PNG
TylerBlok-Groked.pdf
https://commonsensefororegon.org/accomplishments/measure-11
https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2011/04/measure_11_plays_a_critical_ro.html
https://www.streetroots.org/news/2011/08/12/measure-11-s-devastating-effect-oregon-s-next-generation
https://www.taralawrencelaw.com/crime-and-the-budget-crisis-don-t-dismantle-measure-11
https://www.woodburn-or.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/police/page/3591/2010_annual_report.pdf
https://www.portlandmercury.com/politics/2011/07/21/4339754/major-study-shows-racist-outcomes-of-measure-11
https://www.plainsite.org/opinions/a09f1ybs/state-v-blok/
https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tab-or-2012
Court Records Search on Tyler Blok in Tualatin OR Redacted.pdf
Search by Case Number on C112414CR Redacted.pdf

Commentary pages:

The Gatekeeper of Extraordinary Relief: The Foundational Role of *State v. Blok* in Oregon Jurisprudence

The Procedural Abdication: A Critique of *State v. Blok*

Practice Advisory: Defensive Strategy in High-Stakes Pre-Trial Release Proceedings

Interesting details that AI noted about a document available here (Gemini is AI and can make mistakes)

Please email abuse@cytodine.com to report concerns or abuse. But before you do that,it is suggested that you read this.
Secret QR Code
Questions about website owner liabilities and anti-SLAPP motions?