2017 ORS 133.555¹
Hearing

(1) Before acting on the application, the judge may examine on oath the affiants, and the applicant and any witnesses the applicant may produce, and may call such witnesses as the judge considers necessary to a decision. The judge shall make and keep a record of any testimony taken before the judge. The record shall be admissible as evidence on any motion to suppress.

(2) If the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of ORS 133.545 (Issuance of search warrant) and that, on the basis of the record made before the judge, there is probable cause to believe that the search will discover things specified in the application and subject to seizure under ORS 133.535 (Permissible objects of search and seizure), the judge shall issue a search warrant based on the finding of the judge and in accordance with the requirements of ORS 133.545 (Issuance of search warrant) to 133.615 (Return of the warrant). If the judge does not so find, the judge shall deny the application.

(3) The judge may orally authorize a police officer, a district attorney or a special agent employed under ORS 131.805 (Authority to employ special agents) to sign the judge’s name on a duplicate original warrant. A duplicate original warrant shall be a search warrant for the purposes of ORS 133.535 (Permissible objects of search and seizure) to 133.615 (Return of the warrant), and it shall be returned to the judge as provided in ORS 133.615 (Return of the warrant). In such cases a judge shall enter on the face of the original warrant the exact time of the issuance of the warrant and shall sign and file the original warrant in the manner provided by law.

(4) Until the warrant is executed, the proceedings upon application for a search warrant shall be conducted with secrecy appropriate to the circumstances. [1973 c.836 §84; 2009 c.334 §2]

See also annota­tions under ORS 141.030, 141.050 and 141.060 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 141.030)

Search warrant cannot issue except on probable cause. State v. Metler, 6 Or App 356, 487 P2d 1377 (1971); State v. Fahey, 7 Or App 23, 489 P2d 980 (1971)

Probable cause must be shown from facts of affidavit. State v. Metler, 6 Or App 356, 487 P2d 1377 (1971); State v. Fahey, 7 Or App 23, 489 P2d 980 (1971)

Same factors usually create sufficient probable cause to justify arrest, search, seizure or any combina­tion thereof. State v. Temple, 7 Or App 91, 488 P2d 1380 (1971), Sup Ct review denied, cert. denied, 406 US 973

Failure of issuing judge to make and keep record of affiant’s oral testimony supple­menting affidavit as re­quired by this sec­tion does not justify exclusion of evidence seized under search warrant where issuing judge testifies to substance of supple­mental testimony es­tab­lishing probable cause for issuance of warrant and defendant is not otherwise prejudiced by lack of recorda­tion. State v. Mathis, 24 Or App 53, 544 P2d 170 (1976)

In General

The fact that one place may have been more likely spot in which to find evidence sought did not prevent magistrate from concluding that there also existed probable cause to search an­oth­er prop­erty for the same or similar evidence. State v. Villagran, 294 Or 404, 657 P2d 1223 (1983)

Where affidavit es­tab­lished affiant’s knowledge and experience in marijuana growing opera­tions, and in­for­ma­­tion by three citizen informants suggested that marijuana growing opera­tion existed in defendant’s structure, and where informants independently cross-corroborated each others’ in­for­ma­­tion and affiant could independently corroborate by per­sonal observa­tion por­tions of informants’ in­for­ma­­tion, and where power company records showed unusual power consump­tion in winter months and defendant’s shed had recently-installed roof vents, the magistrate did not err in finding probable cause to believe evidence of marijuana growing opera­tion would be found in defendant’s shed. State v. Prince, 93 Or App 106, 760 P2d 1356 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

Court did not consider defendants’ challenge to certain facts within affidavit supporting warrant because affidavit contained sufficient facts which were acquired independently of challenged in­for­ma­­tion to support issuance of warrant. State v. Riggs/Hirning, 99 Or App 151, 781 P2d 395 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Where there was sufficient basis for reasonable magistrate to conclude there probably was evidence of car theft opera­tion on defendant’s prop­erty, court erred in granting defendant’s mo­tion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to warrant. State v. Dunn, 99 Or App 519, 783 P2d 29 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Probable cause require­ment for issuance of warrant was met when of­fi­cer’s investiga­tion developed in­for­ma­­tion from which magistrate could conclude more likely than not that seizable things would be found in place to be searched. State v. Chambless, 111 Or App 76, 824 P2d 1183 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Where written duplicate warrant prepared by police of­fi­cer ma­te­ri­ally exceeded scope of oral authoriza­tion for telephonic warrant, search executed under duplicate warrant was unconstitu­tional even though it was within scope of oral authoriza­tion. State v. Martin/Dills, 170 Or App 366, 12 P3d 548 (2000)

Whether magistrate could reasonably conclude that probable cause existed to issue warrant is reviewed by appellate court independently of review con­ducted by trial court. State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 255, 192 P3d 1283 (2008)

Completed Cita­tions

State v. Skinner, 5 Or App 259, 483 P2d 87 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 141.030)

7 WLJ 456 (1971)

In General

68 OLR 267 (1989)

§§ 133.525 (Definitions for ORS 133.525 to 133.703) to 133.703 (Identity of informants)

Notes of Decisions

Infrac­tions are “crim­i­nal” and search warrant may issue for their investiga­tion. State v. Weist, 79 Or App 435, 720 P2d 753 (1986), aff’d 302 Or 379, 730 P2d 25 (1986)

Law Review Cita­tions

52 OLR 139-154 (1973)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 133—Arrest and Related Procedures; Search and Seizure; Extradition, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors133.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 133, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano133.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.