2015 ORS 41.910¹
Certain intercepted communications inadmissible

Evidence of the contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted:

(1) In violation of ORS 165.540 (Obtaining contents of communications) shall not be admissible in any court of this state, except as evidence of unlawful interception or when the evidence was created by the use of a video camera worn upon a law enforcement officer’s person and the officer either substantially complied with or attempted in good faith to comply with ORS 165.540 (Obtaining contents of communications) (5)(d)(B).

(2) Under ORS 165.540 (Obtaining contents of communications) (2)(a) shall not be admissible in any court of this state unless:

(a) The communication was intercepted by a public official in charge of and at a jail, police premises, sheriff’s office, Department of Corrections institution or other penal or correctional institution; and

(b) The participant in the communication, against whom the evidence is being offered, had actual notice that the communication was being monitored or recorded. [1955 c.675 §6; 1959 c.681 §5; 1979 c.716 §12; 1983 c.824 §4; 1993 c.178 §1; 2001 c.385 §5; 2015 c.550 §3]

Notes of Decisions

The defendant's mo­tion to suppress was properly denied where the evidence objected to was not obtained by the exploita­tion of an illegal eavesdrop con­ducted by the police. State v. Armstrong, 24 Or App 785, 547 P2d 170 (1976)

Where of­fi­cer stopped defendant for suspected use of intoxicants and tape recorded all conversa­tion with defendant from time he approached car until shortly after arrest and tape showed of­fi­cer informed defendant their conversa­tion was being recorded two minutes after they began talking, error in admitting por­tion of tape recording which occurred before of­fi­cer informed defendant of its existence was nonprejudicial. State v. Cooney, 36 Or App 217, 584 P2d 329 (1978)

Mo­tion to challenge admissibility of conversa­tion intercepted under ORS 165.540 (Obtaining contents of communications) must be made in writing. State v. Rodriguez, 115 Or App 281, 840 P2d 711 (1992)

Evidence of contents of bodywire recording obtained in compliance with ORS 165.540 (Obtaining contents of communications) is admissible. State v. Casteel, 122 Or App 218, 857 P2d 204 (1993)

ORS 165.540 (Obtaining contents of communications) pro­vi­sion allowing police to obtain certain conversa­tions upon existence of probable cause or exigent circumstances does not make conversa­tions obtained without court order admissible. State v. Fleetwood, 331 Or 511, 16 P3d 503 (2000)

Suppression of contents of intercepted oral communica­tion does not require suppression of contents of same communica­tion obtained by means other than intercep­tion. State v. Jones, 339 Or 438, 121 P3d 657 (2005)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 41—Evidence Generally, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors041.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 41, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano041.­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.