I wouldn't dream of asking for any manner of legal interpretation from you sir.
Your opinion, however, is highly valued and I seek any input that you or other knowledgable members might feel inclined to provide, particularly since I was one of the individuals involved in creating the language that includes this section and am always open to perspective and opinion. I am now involved in working on the attempt to bring bail bonds back to Oregon and that will entail a significant amount of drafting legislation so this is a good topic to address for future reference.
The section was added specifically to address the concerns of law enforcement assisting in our efforts. As most can probably relate, liability is often at the forefront of an officer's mind. It has been a rather successful approach to building the relationship with LE (it was just passed into legislation at the beginning of this year so time will tell) and has so far garnered positive feedback from the LEO’s that are aware of it.
The definition of "planned forced entry" has been one that hasn't been very clearly defined (the very first bit of legislation regulating recovery work was effective January of 2006 so there have been changes and adjustments made to it since then). It was originally left up to the discretion of the department of licensing, which regulates recovery agents, but as of this year, the definition will be as follows:
Forced Entry: A physical entry into a dwelling without the expressed consent of the dwelling’s resident or representative, limited to the initial point of entry into the dwelling
"Planned" Forced Entry (while not separately defined) refers to a forced entry where the opportunity to plan a forced entry is present, such as a barricaded subject. This would exclude any incident where there is not an opportunity to stop and plan a forced entry, such as pursuit into a residence, etc (unplanned forced entry).
We might be getting a little bit off track here, but I thought that section would be an interesting subject to discuss considering the context of color of law.
Thanks much for the insightful dialog!