2017 ORS 133.673¹

Motions to suppress evidence

See also annota­tions under ORS 141.150 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 141.150)

The burden of showing falsity as to any ma­te­ri­al fact in the affidavit is on the defendant. State v. Wright, 11 Or App 560, 503 P2d 514 (1972), aff’d 266 Or 163, 511 P2d 1223 (1973)

Defendant was re­quired to state by affidavit those facts actually known to him which formed a substantial basis for controverting the affidavit for a search warrant before being privileged to invoke the pro­ce­dure provided by the statute. State v. Wright, 266 Or 163, 511 P2d 1223 (1973)

A mo­tion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search, stating that the search was warrantless, is sufficient to place the burden of proving the reasonableness of the search on the state. State v. Miller, 269 Or 328, 524 P2d 1399 (1974)

In General

This sec­tion does not change the rule that failure to furnish the list of things seized re­quired by ORS 133.723 (Records confidential) is not ground for suppression of evidence. State v. Fitzgerald, 19 Or App 860, 530 P2d 553 (1974)

In a case where a mo­tion to suppress raises more than one conten­tion and the trial court is persuaded to grant the mo­tion on one or more of the grounds raised, then the court must state the basis of its decision. State v. Johnson/Imel, 16 Or App 560, 519 P2d 1053 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

A mo­tion to suppress should be as reasonably specific as possible under the circumstances in order to give the state as much notice as possible of the conten­tions it must be prepared to meet at the suppression hearing, and at least as much specificity should be re­quired in a mo­tion to suppress as is re­quired in an oral objec­tion made during the course of a trial. State v. Johnson/Imel, 16 Or App 560, 519 P2d 1053 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Trial court was within its discre­tion in limiting defendant to written mo­tion to suppress without oral argu­ment. State v. Gholston, 55 Or App 790, 639 P2d 1302 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendants were represented by same lawyer who filed mo­tion to suppress, which was denied, and defendants then hired separate lawyers who also filed mo­tion to suppress, trial court did not abuse discre­tion by refusing to rehear mo­tion. State v. Farkes, 71 Or App 155, 691 P2d 489 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Pretrial mo­tions to suppress evidence seized unlawfully are not answered initially by reference to federal or state constitu­tion, but are regulated by statute. State v. Harp, 299 Or 1, 697 P2d 548 (1985)

Court did not have authority to refuse to consider merits of defendant’s mo­tion to suppress based upon her earlier failure to appear for hearing on mo­tion. State v. Desirey, 99 Or App 283, 782 P2d 429 (1989)

Where pretrial ruling is made on mo­tion to suppress, failure to pursue discre­tionary relitiga­tion of issue at trial does not render claim of error on pretrial ruling unpreserved. State v. Cole, 323 Or 30, 912 P2d 907 (1996)

Law Review Cita­tions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 141.150)

7 WLJ 450-468 (1971)

In General

54 OLR 411 (1975)

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)