2015 ORS 133.575¹
Execution of warrant

(1) Except as provided in ORS 136.583 (Seizure or production of papers, documents or records from recipient), a search warrant may be executed only within the period and at the times authorized by the warrant and only by a police officer. A police officer charged with its execution may be accompanied by such other persons as may be reasonably necessary for the successful execution of the warrant with all practicable safety.

(2) The executing officer shall, before entering the premises, give appropriate notice of the identity, authority and purpose of the officer to the person to be searched, or to the person in apparent control of the premises to be searched, as the case may be.

(3) Except as provided in ORS 133.619 (Execution of warrant authorizing mobile tracking device), before undertaking any search or seizure pursuant to the warrant, the executing officer shall read and give a copy of the warrant to the person to be searched, or to the person in apparent control of the premises to be searched. If the premises are unoccupied or there is no one in apparent control, the officer shall leave a copy of the warrant suitably affixed to the premises. [1973 c.836 §86; 1989 c.983 §4; 2009 c.617 §2]

See also annota­tions under ORS 141.020, 141.090 and 141.110 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 141.110)

Whether exigent circumstances exist depends on whether complying with knock and announce pro­vi­sion would run contrary to pro­vi­sion's goal of protecting of­fi­cers and avoiding unnecessary destruc­tion of evidence. State v. Mitchell, 6 Or App 378, 487 P2d 1156 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence secured by an entry not in compliance with this sec­tion shall not be excluded. State v. Valentine, 264 Or 54, 504 P2d 84 (1972), cert. denied, 412 US 948

In General

This sec­tion does not permit of­fi­cers executing warrant to take any steps, other than those authorized in warrant, to determine who was in control of premises to be searched beyond those they could take without warrant. State v. Ohling, 70 Or App 249, 688 P2d 1384 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Magistrate has no authority to abrogate re­quired pro­ce­dures for executing warrant, including "knock-and-announce" require­ment of this sec­tion. State v. Arce, 83 Or App 185, 730 P2d 1260 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Where police of­fi­cers complied with require­ments of this sec­tion and knocked at outer door before prying it open, they were not re­quired to knock and announce before entering each inner door. United States v. Johnson, 643 F Sup 1465 (1986)

Where police of­fi­cers gave notice of their identity, authority and purpose, paused to allow occupants few sec­onds to prepare for entry and then entered premises, of­fi­cers did not violate knock and announce statute and trial court did not err in denying defendant's mo­tion to suppress. State v. Stalbert, 99 Or App 582, 783 P2d 1005 (1989)

Where of­fi­cer's belief of danger attendant with entry of defendant's residence was based on in­for­ma­­tion of possible narcotics involve­ment or weapons and on report that owner of residence was member of "outlaw" motorcycle gang, of­fi­cers had reasonable apprehension of peril and were not re­quired to knock and announce before entering to execute search warrant. State v. Schultz, 109 Or App 407, 819 P2d 762 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

State has burden to prove it has complied with "appropriate notice" require­ment of this sec­tion. State v. Schultz, 109 Or App 407, 819 P2d 762 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Where occupants of house could see of­fi­cers approaching and of­fi­cers opened screen door, did not break down door or injure anyone, viola­tion of this sec­tion did not require suppression of evidence seized in search. State v. Arnold, 115 Or App 258, 838 P2d 74 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Where occupants of prop­erty were aware of identity, authority and purpose of police of­fi­cers serving search warrant, notice was appropriate and of­fi­cers were not re­quired to wait before entering. State v. Bost, 317 Or 538, 857 P2d 132 (1993)

Failure to wait for arrival of warrant was not ag­gra­vat­ed error where evidence was subject to rapid dissipa­tion and distance prevented prompt delivery of copy. State v. Blasingame, 127 Or App 382, 873 P2d 361 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

In General

Search and seizure by inspectors and investigators of Oregon Liquor Control Commission, (1974) Vol 36, p 1066

Law Review Cita­tions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 141.110)

8 WLJ 107-114, 224-228 (1972); 10 WLJ 62 (1973)

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 (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.