2015 ORS 131.625¹
Frisk of stopped persons

(1) A peace officer may frisk a stopped person for dangerous or deadly weapons if the officer reasonably suspects that the person is armed and dangerous to the officer or other persons present.

(2) If, in the course of the frisk, the peace officer feels an object which the peace officer reasonably suspects is a dangerous or deadly weapon, the peace officer may take such action as is reasonably necessary to take possession of the weapon. [1973 c.836 §32; 1997 c.866 §3]

Notes of Decisions

A visual search of the defendant's per­son is less intrusive upon privacy than a frisk and it is therefore permissible if a frisk is permitted. State v. Fent, 29 Or App 249, 562 P2d 1239 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Where of­fi­cer had made lawful stop of defendant pursuant to ORS 131.615 (Stopping of persons), and had reasonable cause to suspect that defendant might possess dangerous weapons, of­fi­cer was not re­quired to make any inquiry prior to frisk of defendant. State v. Miner, 31 Or App 495, 570 P2d 998 (1977)

Viola­tion of this sec­tion by police of­fi­cer, in frisking suspected armed robber, re­quired exclusion from evidence of drugs found in suspect's pocket, notwithstanding that frisking was good faith effort by of­fi­cer to protect self and fellow of­fi­cer from physical harm. State v. Fairley, 282 Or 689, 580 P2d 179 (1978)

Where of­fi­cer removed spiral notebook from defendant's pocket in course of patdown, he did not have reasonable belief that "large, bulky object" was dangerous or deadly weapon. State v. Kurtz, 46 Or App 617, 612 P2d 749 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

That defendant matched fairly closely descrip­tion of burglar could not alone have given rise to probable cause for arrest; that and addi­tional fact defendant turned and ran after voluntarily agreeing to accompany of­fi­cer to burglary scene did; of­fi­cer had probable cause to arrest and search was incident to arrest. State v. Battle, 58 Or App 224, 648 P2d 411 (1982)

Where police had neither reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed a crime nor cause to place him under civil commit­ment hold or medical emergency, the frisk was unlawful, as were sub­se­quent search and seizure. State v. Hampton, 59 Or App 512, 651 P2d 744 (1982)

Even assuming that defendant was lawfully stopped on reasonable suspicion of trafficking in narcotics, the warrantless seizure of defendant's bag for one hour and twenty minutes until a narcotics-sniffing dog was summoned was unlawful because this sec­tion limits seizures in connec­tion with a stop to dangerous or deadly weapons. State v. Dupay, 62 Or App 798, 662 P2d 736 (1983), Sup Ct review denied

That of­fi­cer was aware from prior experience and training that downtown bus mall had reputa­tion for weapons-carrying narcotics offenders did not, in absence of addi­tional facts related to per­son in ques­tion, provide reasonable suspicion to believe that per­son stopped for pos­ses­sion of less than ounce of marijuana was armed and dangerous. State v. Baldwin, 76 Or App 723, 712 P2d 120 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant, passenger in automobile originally stopped for traffic viola­tion, sought to suppress evidence seized during frisk by challenging stop and frisk, stop was proper under ORS 131.615 (Stopping of persons) and same facts that justified stop necessarily justified reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous, making frisk proper under this sec­tion. State v. Bowen, 88 Or App 584, 746 P2d 249 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Before lawful frisk may be con­ducted under this sec­tion there must have been lawful stop and mere intui­tion of of­fi­cer cannot form entire basis for reasonable suspicion. State v. Houghton, 91 Or App 71, 754 P2d 13 (1988)

Where police of­fi­cers knew arrest warrant existed for owner of vehicle for manufacture and transporta­tion of methamphetamines, saw equip­ment commonly used for such manufacture in back of vehicle and knew people involved in manufacture and transporta­tion of methamphetamines commonly carry weapons, circumstances justified suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous. State v. Bechtold, 99 Or App 593, 783 P2d 1008 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

This sec­tion requires more than two generalized concerns to justify frisk; there must be particularized facts which give rise to reasonable suspicion that suspect poses immediate threat. State v. Matthys, 106 Or App 276, 808 P2d 94 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Where of­fi­cer had reasonable and articulable basis for believing object might contain weapon, seizure of object was reasonable. State v. Lumpkin, 133 Or App 265, 891 P2d 660 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Belief that per­son has committed nonviolent crime does not, by itself, give rise to reasonable suspicion that per­son is armed. State v. Dyer, 141 Or App 6, 917 P2d 51 (1996)

Statutory power to frisk does not act as outer limita­tion on permissible of­fi­cer safety measures. State v. Rickard, 150 Or App 517, 947 P2d 215 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

Notes of Decisions

Even assuming that defendant was lawfully stopped on reasonable suspicion of trafficking in narcotics, the warrantless seizure of the defendant's bag for one hour and twenty minutes until a narcotics-sniffing dog was summoned was unlawful because these sec­tions limit seizures in connec­tion with a stop to dangerous or deadly weapons. State v. Dupay, 62 Or App 798, 622 P2d 736 (1983), Sup Ct review denied

Exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained following illegal stop when defendant, after stop, committed new crime justifying arrest. State v. Weiland, 72 Or App 25, 695 P2d 85 (1985), Sup Ct review denied


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 131—Preliminary Provisions; Limitations; Jurisdiction; Venue; Criminal Forfeiture; Crime Prevention, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors131.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 131, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano131.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.