ORS 133.535¹
Permissible objects of search and seizure

The following are subject to search and seizure under ORS 133.525 (Definitions for ORS 133.525 to 133.703) to 133.703 (Identity of informants):

(1) Evidence of or information concerning the commission of a criminal offense;

(2) Contraband, the fruits of crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed;

(3) Property that has been used, or is possessed for the purpose of being used, to commit or conceal the commission of an offense; and

(4) A person for whose arrest there is probable cause or who is unlawfully held in concealment. [1973 c.836 §82]

See also annota­tions under ORS 141.010 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Discovery by one police of­fi­cer of defendant's 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

Probable cause that crime of ex-convict in pos­ses­sion of concealable weapon was being committed by defendant, together with exigent circumstances including lateness of hour and fact that defendant was not in custody, justified warrantless search of defendant's automobile. State v. Wright, 30 Or App 11, 566 P2d 185 (1977)

Absent reasonable possibility of loss of evidence, oral con­sent to police of­fi­cers to enter living room of residence did not justify sub­se­quent warrantless search of remainder of house con­ducted for purpose of "securing the residence." State v. Drouhard, 31 Or App 1083, 572 P2d 331 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant entered house in process of being searched, of­fi­cers took defendant to kitchen, advised him of rights, "patted him down" and took his money and car keys, and using keys, entered trunk of defendant's automobile outside house and seized briefcase found within, of­fi­cers could seize, as distinguished from search, briefcase, but could not constitu­tionally search briefcase without warrant. State v. Groda, 285 Or 321, 591 P2d 1354 (1979)

There is no constitu­tional require­ment that police of­fi­cers who hold valid arrest warrant and have probable cause to believe subject is located on private premises must also obtain search warrant before they may enter premises to execute arrest warrant. State v. Jordan, 288 Or 391, 605 P2d 464 (1980); State v. Davis, 313 Or 246, 834 P2d 1008 (1992)

Authority to search for per­son for whose arrest there is probable cause, does not authorize search for per­sons who cannot be arrested. State v. DeKuyper, 74 Or App 534, 703 P2d 261 (1985)

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)

Where magistrate issued warrant to search motor vehicle for evidence that it had been unlawfully registered, an infrac­tion, warrant was valid because vehicle was prop­erty which probably was used to commit or conceal of­fense within meaning of this sec­tion. State v. Weist, 302 Or 370, 730 P2d 26 (1986)

Search warrants limited to items relating to specific crime did not grant police carte blanche to search for any evidence and seize anything they encountered so warrants were sufficient. State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 786 P2d 161 (1989)

Where of­fi­cer observed paperfolds suspected of containing controlled substance in plain view during street encounter, of­fi­cer had probable cause to arrest defendant. State v. Shelton, 103 Or App 179, 796 P2d 390 (1990), as modified by 105 Or App 570, 805 P2d 698 (1991)

Evidence of crimes committed against police of­fi­cers, during what turns out to be illegal entry, may not be suppressed. State v. Janicke, 103 Or App 227, 796 P2d 392 (1990)

Negative record check is not probable cause for of­fi­cer to search defendant's purse, and search cannot be justified as incident to arrest for failure to display operator's license. State v. Scarborough, 103 Or App 231, 796 P2d 394 (1990)

Search incident to arrest for driving while suspended can justify removal of box from defendant's pocket, but without sugges­tion that box contains evidence of crime for which defendant was arrested, opening box and inspecting contents is unlawful. State v. Jones, 103 Or App 316, 797 P2d 385 (1990)

Where affidavits did not indicate that defendant resided at prop­erty, did not es­tab­lish that defendant con­ducted any activities related to marijuana growing opera­tion at prop­erty or did not link prop­erty with remote growing opera­tion, there was not probable cause to believe search would lead to discovery of evidence of growing opera­tion. State v. Stockton, 120 Or App 111, 852 P2d 227 (1993)

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/­Archive/­2007ors133.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 133, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­133ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
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