2015 ORS 133.310¹
Authority of peace officer to arrest without warrant

(1) A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any of the following:

(a) A felony.

(b) A misdemeanor.

(c) An unclassified offense for which the maximum penalty allowed by law is equal to or greater than the maximum penalty allowed for a Class C misdemeanor.

(d) Any other crime committed in the officers presence.

(2) A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant when the peace officer is notified by telegraph, telephone, radio or other mode of communication by another peace officer of any state that there exists a duly issued warrant for the arrest of a person within the other peace officers jurisdiction.

(3) A peace officer shall arrest and take into custody a person without a warrant when the peace officer has probable cause to believe that:

(a) There exists an order issued pursuant to ORS 30.866 (Action for issuance or violation of stalking protective order), 107.095 (Provisions court may make after commencement of suit and before judgment) (1)(c) or (d), 107.716 (Hearing), 107.718 (Restraining order), 124.015 (Hearing upon request of respondent), 124.020 (Ex parte hearing), 133.035 (Ex parte emergency protective orders), 163.738 (Effect of citation), 163.765 (Restraining order), 163.767 (Hearing) or 419B.845 (Restraining order when child abuse alleged) restraining the person;

(b) A true copy of the order and proof of service on the person has been filed as required in ORS 107.720 (Enforcement of restraining orders), 124.030 (Proof of service of restraining order to be delivered to sheriff), 133.035 (Ex parte emergency protective orders), 163.741 (Service of stalking protective order), 163.773 (Enforcement of restraining order) or 419B.845 (Restraining order when child abuse alleged); and

(c) The person to be arrested has violated the terms of that order.

(4) A peace officer shall arrest and take into custody a person without a warrant if:

(a) The person protected by a foreign restraining order as defined by ORS 24.190 (Foreign restraining orders) presents a copy of the foreign restraining order to the officer and represents to the officer that the order supplied is the most recent order in effect between the parties and that the person restrained by the order has been personally served with a copy of the order or has actual notice of the order; and

(b) The peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has violated the terms of the foreign restraining order.

(5) A peace officer shall arrest and take into custody a person without a warrant if:

(a) The person protected by a foreign restraining order as defined by ORS 24.190 (Foreign restraining orders) has filed a copy of the foreign restraining order with a court or has been identified by the officer as a party protected by a foreign restraining order entered in the Law Enforcement Data System or in the databases of the National Crime Information Center of the United States Department of Justice; and

(b) The peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has violated the terms of the foreign restraining order.

(6) A peace officer shall arrest and take into custody a person without a warrant if the peace officer has probable cause to believe:

(a) The person has been charged with an offense and is presently released as to that charge under ORS 135.230 (Definitions for ORS 135.230 to 135.290) to 135.290 (Punishment by contempt of court); and

(b) The person has failed to comply with a no contact condition of the release agreement. [Amended by 1963 c.448 §1; 1973 c.836 §72; 1974 c.42 §2; 1977 c.845 §2; 1979 c.522 §2; 1981 c.780 §8; 1981 c.818 §2; 1983 c.338 §887; 1983 c.661 §7; 1987 c.730 §4a; 1989 c.171 §15; 1991 c.208 §2; 1991 c.222 §2; 1993 c.626 §10; 1993 c.731 §3; 1995 c.353 §11; 1995 c.666 §24; 1997 c.249 §45; 1997 c.863 §2; 1999 c.250 §2; 1999 c.1040 §8; 1999 c.1051 §68; 2005 c.753 §1; 2013 c.687 §15; 2015 c.252 §2]

Notes of Decisions

In General

Where arresting of­fi­cers entered house within 10 to 15 minutes after report of burglary where burglary victim believed defendant lived, circumstances were sufficiently exigent to justify entry to make probable cause arrest. State v. Ellett, 33 Or App 447, 576 P2d 839 (1978)

Where plaintiff delivered to police proof that her husband had been served with order restraining him from molesting family and then reported to police series of viola­tions of order but police refused to arrest husband, court held that of­fi­cers who knowingly failed to enforce judicial order issued under Abuse Preven­tion Act are potentially liable for resulting harm to psychic and physical health of intended beneficiaries of the order. Nearing v. Weaver, 295 Or 702, 670 P2d 137 (1983)

Warrantless arrest, not in defendants home, if based upon probable cause does not violate Article I, Sec­tion 9 of the Oregon Constitu­tion. State v. Mace, 67 Or App 753, 681 P2d 140 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Where county held parolee subject to official communica­tion that State Board of Parole had issued warrant for parolees arrest, parolees right to be free of unreasonable seizures was not violated; of­fi­cer need not have copy of warrant or order in hand but may rely on official communica­tion indicating that warrant exists. Waller v. Drago, 611 F Supp 405 (1985)

Where evidence showed that tribal law incorporated Oregon law concerning arrest for drunken driving, allowing arrest if of­fi­cer has probable cause to believe per­son has committed major traffic of­fense, tribal of­fi­cer was authorized to make such arrest. United States v. Strong, 778 F2d 1393 (1985)

Facts were sufficient to justify stop when, after receiving in­for­ma­­tion of viola­tion of restraining order, of­fi­cer, shortly after notice, observed defendant driving vehicle in vicinity of viola­tion which matched descrip­tion he had been given. State v. Steinke, 88 Or App 626, 746 P2d 758 (1987)

Arrest warrant issued for defendant by county in this state is duly issued warrant because any state as used in this sec­tion applies to all states including this state. State v. Meier, 259 Or App 482, 314 P3d 359 (2013), Sup Ct review denied

Probable Cause to Believe Commission of Felony

Generally speaking reasonable cause to arrest and reasonable cause to search are synonymous. State v. Hodge, 11 Or App 525, 504 P2d 143 (1972)

Probable cause can be supplied by in­for­ma­­tion from an informant if the in­for­ma­­tion describes the accuseds crim­i­nal ac­tivity in such detail as to be susceptible of a reasonable inference that the informant had gained his in­for­ma­­tion in a reliable way. State v. Hodge, 11 Or App 525, 504 P2d 143 (1972)

Officers Had Probable Cause to Go to Defendants Apart­ment and Arrest Him for Illegal Sale of Drugs to Police Contact Where They

(1) Observed defendant going into the apart­ment with what appeared to be hashish and the police contact coming out with what appeared to be a package of hashish, and; (2) recovered the hashish from the police contact. State v. Bopp, 16 Or App 604, 519 P2d 1277 (1974)

Discovery by one police of­fi­cer of defendants per­sonal prop­erty in the same room with illegal narcotics, unknown to an­oth­er of­fi­cer, did not constitute probable cause for that other of­fi­cer to arrest and search defendant. State v. Mickelson, 18 Or App 647, 526 P2d 583 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Where descrip­tion of suspects and series of ac­tions taken matched in­for­ma­­tion provided by anonymous informant, sufficient corrobora­tion of informant in­for­ma­­tion existed to create probable cause for arrest. State v. Marsden, Moore, Cassidy, 19 Or App 742, 528 P2d 1066 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Where, in course of burglary investiga­tion, of­fi­cer knocked on defendants motel room door, and when defendant opened door beer came into plain view, there was evidence that crime of mi­nor in pos­ses­sion of liquor was being committed, and of­fi­cer properly arrested defendant. State v. Bettles, 45 Or App 9, 607 P2d 216 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Where, during valid stop of defendant, events developed which gave police of­fi­cers well-warranted belief that defendant was perpetrator of bombing, defendants arrest was proper. State v. Miller, 54 Or App 323, 634 P2d 1361 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Where shooting victim told deputy sheriff Dan the Jeweler shot me. He drives a truck for Safeway. and of­fi­cer ordering arrest had in­for­ma­­tion that defendant was known to local law en­force­­ment officials as Dan the Jeweler and worked for Safeway, there was probable cause to make warrantless arrest. State v. Holterman, 69 Or App 509, 687 P2d 1097 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Where arresting of­fi­cer relied on teletype request from an­oth­er jurisdic­tion requesting arrest of felony suspect, arrest of defendant was proper even though of­fi­cer did not per­sonally have probable cause to arrest. State v. Pratt, 309 Or 205, 785 P2d 350 (1989)

Police Officers Lacked Probable Cause to Make Warrantless Arrest Where

1) original stop was based on fleeting observa­tion by informer who tentatively stated that someone was possibly taking or putting an­oth­er into car at gunpoint; 2) none of per­sons in car stopped by police gave any indica­tion that crime had been committed; and 3) police of­fi­cer lacked even subjective belief that defendant had committed of­fense, testifying that he was still investigating when defendant was arrested. State v. Morgan, 106 Or App 138, 806 P2d 713 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Reliability of informant in­for­ma­­tion is not es­tab­lished solely through independent corrobora­tion, but can instead be es­tab­lished by facts showing informant is credible or informants in­for­ma­­tion is reliable. State v. Rasheed, 128 Or App 439, 876 P2d 859 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

Informa­tion transmitted by Law Enforce­ment Data System, maintained by Oregon State Police, of duly issued arrest warrant for defendant is sufficient notifica­tion to support of­fi­cers warrantless arrest of defendant. State v. Meier, 259 Or App 482, 314 P3d 359 (2013), Sup Ct review denied

Search and Seizure

Absent exigent circumstances or hot pursuit, police of­fi­cers who have probable cause to arrest a per­son may not forcibly enter a per­sons home for that purpose in absence of having secured a warrant. State v. Olson, 287 Or 157, 598 P2d 670 (1979)

Officer had probable cause to believe defendant possessed controlled substance when, after activa­tion of patrol cars overhead lights, of­fi­cer observed defendant bend down in car as if hiding something and of­fi­cer observed spoon on floorboard of vehicle that had burn marks and crystal­line substance on it. State v. Hayes, 99 Or App 322, 781 P2d 1251 (1989)

Completed Cita­tions

State v. Patterson, 5 Or App 438, 485 P2d 429 (1971), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Frailey, 6 Or App 8, 485 P2d 1126 (1971), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Riner, 6 Or App 72, 485 P2d 1234 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Arrest and incarcera­tion of per­sons for traffic infrac­tions, (1977) Vol 38, p 960

Law Review Cita­tions

8 WLJ 230-234 (1972); 4 EL 455 (1974); 20 WLR 579 (1984); 77 OLR 497 (1998); 85 OLR 325 (2006)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 133—Arrest and Related Procedures; Search and Seizure; Extradition, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors133.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 133, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano133.­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.