ORS 133.565¹
Contents of search warrant

(1) A search warrant shall be dated and shall be addressed to and authorize its execution by an officer authorized by law to execute search warrants.

(2) The warrant shall state, or describe with particularity:

(a) The identity of the judge issuing the warrant and the date the warrant was issued;

(b) The name of the person to be searched, or the location and designation of the premises or places to be searched;

(c) The things constituting the object of the search and authorized to be seized; and

(d) The period of time, not to exceed five days, after execution of the warrant except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, within which the warrant is to be returned to the issuing authority.

(3) Except as otherwise provided herein, the search warrant shall be executed between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and within five days from the date of issuance. The judge issuing the warrant may, however, by indorsement upon the face of the warrant, authorize its execution at any time of the day or night and may further authorize its execution after five days, but not more than 10 days from date of issuance. [1973 c.836 §85]

See also annota­tions under ORS 141.020 and 141.080 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

A search warrant need not be di­rected to a specific named of­fi­cer for execu­tion. State v. Nehl, 19 Or App 586, 528 P2d 553 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

The test for specificity of warrants to search a dwelling is not the number of occupants, but the existence of separate units within the structure. State v. Willcutt, 19 Or App 93, 526 P2d 607 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Where subunits or multiple dwelling units exist, the warrant must specify which are to be searched. State v. Willcutt, 19 Or App 93, 526 P2d 607 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Although residents of a dwelling subjectively considered their rooms separate units, search of entire structure was reasonable when of­fi­cers had no reason to know that it was other than a single dwelling house. State v. Willcutt, 19 Or App 93, 526 P2d 607 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Even Though Warrant Was Served At Approximately 8

30 a.m. but search not completed until about 16 hours later, evidence seized after 10 p.m. was properly admitted, as legislature did not intend “execute” to mean fully completed search. State v. Callaghan, 33 Or App 49, 576 P2d 14 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Judge issuing search warrant allowing execu­tion at any time may do so only on basis of facts presented to him during warrant applica­tion process which demonstrate necessity of nighttime search. State v. Brock, 53 Or App 785, 633 P2d 805 (1981), aff’d294 Or 15, 653 P2d 543 (1982)

Improper nighttime execu­tion of warrant does not require that resulting evidence be suppressed. State v. Cochrane, 54 Or App 118, 634 P2d 273 (1981), aff’d 294 Or 12, 653 P2d 549 (1982)

Although the statute implicitly requires a showing of special circumstances for a nighttime search indorse­ment, failure to show such circumstances does not require suppression of evidence seized pursuant to nighttime warrant. State v. Ness, 54 Or App 530, 635 P2d 1025 (1981), aff’d 294 Or 8, 653 P2d 548 (1982); State v. Brock, 294 Or 15, 653 P2d 543 (1982)

Although the warrant and attach­ments de­scribed the prop­erty to be searched in the most technical manner possible, the descrip­tion was sufficiently definite and understandable to enable police of­fi­cer to distinguish that prop­erty from neighboring prop­erty and to locate and identify it “with reasonable effort.” Mercer v. State, 63 Or App 437, 664 P2d 429 (1983)

Where of­fi­cers with warrant not endorsed for nighttime service executed 15 minutes before statutory end of night, viola­tion of statute does not require suppression of evidence. State v. O’Driscoll, 65 Or App 362, 671 P2d 752 (1983), Sup Ct review denied

Fact that request for extension of warrant beyond five days allowed in this sec­tion was endorsed by judge other than judge who originally signed warrant did not require suppression of evidence seized thereunder. State v. Whalen, 90 Or App 18, 750 P2d 1168 (1988)

Search warrant expires if not executed within time require­ments of this sec­tion. State v. Daw, 94 Or App 370, 765 P2d 341 (1988)

Warrant to search certain premises applies only to those premises and if during search separate premises are encountered and searched, search of latter is unauthorized without regard to whether of­fi­cers could have anticipated ahead of time that they would encounter those separate premises. State v. Devine, 307 Or 341, 768 P2d 913 (1989); State v. Martini, 104 Or App 44, 799 P2d 184 (1990)

Warrant was not sufficient under this sec­tion for purpose of seizing drugs from defendant’s vehicle where defendant was mere visitor on premises de­scribed in warrant, and there was nothing to indicate that vehicles of per­sons visiting premises would contain evidence of manufacture or sale of drugs. State v. Leathers, 106 Or App 157, 806 P2d 718 (1991)

Where warrant contained correct address and accurate physical descrip­tion of place to be searched, warrant satisfied statutory require­ment of particularity in spite of fact that warrant also contained inaccurate direc­tions and map. State v. Gomez, 107 Or App 698, 813 P2d 567 (1991)

This sec­tion imple­ments constitu­tional pro­hi­bi­­tions against general warrants and is at least as restrictive as constitu­tional pro­hi­bi­­tions against general warrants found in Article I, sec­tion 9, Oregon Constitu­tion. State v. Ingram, 313 Or 139, 831 P2d 674 (1992)

Warrant directing executing of­fi­cer to search “all vehicles determined to be associated with” occupants of premises violated this sec­tion. State v. Ingram, 313 Or 139, 831 P2d 674 (1992)

Suppression of evidence is appropriate remedy for viola­tion of this sec­tion. State v. Ingram, 313 Or 139, 831 P2d 674 (1992)

Where warrant containing incorrect house number was corrected by magistrate based on unsworn in­for­ma­­tion re­gard­ing mis­take, and search warrant without correc­tion did not authorize search of defendant’s residence, trial court erred in failing to grant mo­tion to suppress evidence seized. State v. Burton/Cunningham, 121 Or App 508, 855 P2d 1124 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Trial court did not err by denying mo­tion to suppress where warrant stated Lincoln County in prefatory language but correctly de­scribed loca­tion to be searched in Multnomah County. State v. Jost/Oregon-Washington Recovery Co., Inc., 122 Or App 531, 858 P2d 881 (1993)

Where warrant was executed promptly, scrivener’s error indicating issuance more than five days prior to execu­tion did not invalidate warrant. State v. Dalton, 132 Or App 36, 887 P2d 379 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

Warrant authorizing search of all per­sons present was invalid where affidavit did not demonstrate probable cause to believe that all per­sons present would be engaged in crim­i­nal ac­tivity. State v. Reid, 319 Or 65, 872 P2d 416 (1994)

Where warrant contained detailed physical descrip­tion and loca­tion in­for­ma­­tion that unmistakably identified prop­erty, warrant was sufficiently particular notwithstanding incorrect prop­erty address. State v. Edwards, 149 Or App 702, 945 P2d 553 (1997), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Bush, 174 Or App 280, 25 P3d 368 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Authority to seize objects is separate from authority to search and must be ex­plic­itly set forth in warrant. State v. Miller, 188 Or App 514, 72 P3d 643 (2003), Sup Ct review denied

Warrant may validly authorize only search or only seizure. State v. Carter, 200 Or App 262, 113 P3d 969 (2005), aff’d 342 Or 39, 147 P3d 1151 (2006)

Warrant authorizing search of cell phone that placed no limita­tion on types or time frame of data to be seized and examined was impermissibly overbroad. State v. Allen, 288 Or App 244, 406 P3d 89 (2017)

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 (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 133, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano133.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
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. Currency Information