2007 ORS 654.206¹
Grounds for issuance of inspection warrants
  • requirements of affidavit

(1) An inspection warrant shall be issued only upon cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the applicant’s status in applying for the warrant hereunder, the statute, ordinance or regulation requiring or authorizing the inspection or investigation, the place of employment to be inspected or investigated and the purpose for which the inspection or investigation is to be made including the basis upon which cause exists to inspect. In addition, the affidavit shall contain either a statement that entry has been sought and refused or facts or circumstances reasonably showing that the purposes of the inspection or investigation might be frustrated if entry were sought without an inspection warrant.

(2) Cause shall be deemed to exist if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting a routine, periodic or area inspection are satisfied with respect to the particular place of employment, or there is probable cause to believe that a condition of nonconformity with a safety or health statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, standard or order exists with respect to the particular place of employment, or an investigation is reasonably believed to be necessary in order to determine or verify the cause of an employee’s death, injury or illness. [1971 c.405 §2; 1973 c.833 §26]

Notes of Decisions

Where no administrative standards had been adopted to guarantee that search warrants issued pursuant to this sec­tion would be justified by reasonable govern­mental interest, warrants were invalid. State ex rel Accident Preven­tion Division v. Foster, 31 Or App 291, 570 P2d 398 (1977)

Where premises sought to be inspected had prior history of viola­tions, reluctance to cure viola­tions, unwillingness to accept voluntary inspec­tions, and injuries to employes, sufficient cause to justify issuance of warrant was present. Accident Preven­tion Division v. Hogan, 37 Or App 251, 586 P2d 1132 (1978)

Validity of Oregon Safe Employ­ment Act inspec­tion warrant could not be collaterally attacked in contempt pro­ceed­ing instituted after employer's refusal to comply with warrant. State ex rel Acc. Prev. Div. v. Sturdi-Craft, 45 Or App 319, 608 P2d 209 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Notes of Decisions

Safety codes under Oregon Safe Employ­ment Act apply to all work places and not only to work places covered by Employer Liability Law. Miller v. Ga.-Pacific, 294 Or 750, 662 P2d 718 (1983)

Viola­tion of Workers' Compensa­tion Depart­ment rule resulting in injury to nonemploye is not negligence per se, but it does not follow that rule is irrelevant to determina­tion of due care in case grounded in common law negligence. Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598, 695 P2d 897 (1985)

Where right of ac­tion for injuries exists resulting from viola­tion of Oregon Safe Employ­ment Act, right belongs only to employee whom Act directly protects not "indirect" employee. Flores v. Metro Machinery Rigging, Inc., 99 Or App 636, 783 P2d 1024 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Referee did not err in finding employer in viola­tion of rule requiring workers to be "properly...supervised" where employee killed in accident was skilled and experienced supervisor working with two other supervisors during strike, but none of the three was in charge. Accident Preven­tion Div. v. Roseburg Forest Prod., 106 Or App 69, 806 P2d 172 (1991)

Whether identity of complainant falsely reporting viola­tion is subject to disclosure under Oregon public records law (ORS 192.410 (Definitions for ORS 192.410 to 192.505) et seq.) depends on complainant's good or bad faith in making complaint. Hood Technology Corp. v. Oregon Occupa­tional Safety and Health Division, 168 Or App 293, 7 P3d 564 (2000)

Chapter 654

Notes of Decisions

An administrative regula­tion requires Accident Preven­tion Division to prove reasonableness of civil penalty imposed for viola­tion of Oregon State Employ­ment Act. Accident Preven­tion Div. v. Sunrise Seed, 26 Or App 879, 554 P2d 550 (1976)

Accident Preven­tion Division rule allowing cita­tion for "repeat viola­tion" of division's safety standards while prior cita­tion is contested and not yet upheld by final order is within agency's authority to promulgate rules consistent with purpose of Act to assure as far as possible safe and healthful working condi­tions. Accident Preven­tion Div. v. Hoffman Construc­tion, 64 Or App 73, 667 P2d 543 (1983)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Inap­pli­ca­bil­i­ty of occupa­tional safety and health laws to inmates in prison work programs, (1996) Vol 48, p 134

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 654—Occupational Safety and Health, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­654.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 654, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­654ano.­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.