Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.615 (2026)

Stopping of persons

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      131.615 Stopping of persons. (1) A peace officer who reasonably suspects that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime may stop the person and, after informing the person that the peace officer is a peace officer, make a reasonable inquiry.

      (2) The detention and inquiry shall be conducted in the vicinity of the stop and for no longer than a reasonable time.

      (3) The inquiry shall be considered reasonable if it is limited to:

      (a) The immediate circumstances that aroused the officer’s suspicion;

      (b) Other circumstances arising during the course of the detention and inquiry that give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; and

      (c) Ensuring the safety of the officer, the person stopped or other persons present, including an inquiry regarding the presence of weapons.

      (4)(a) The inquiry may include a request for consent to search in relation to the circumstances specified in subsection (3) of this section or to search for items of evidence otherwise subject to search or seizure under ORS 133.535 only if the officer first informs the person that the person has the right to refuse the request.

      (b) An officer who obtains consent to search under this subsection shall ensure that there is a written, video or audio record that the person gave informed and voluntary consent to search.

      (c) This subsection does not apply to implied consent searches described in ORS 813.100, 813.131 or 813.135.

      (5) A peace officer making a stop may use the degree of force reasonably necessary to make the stop and ensure the safety of the peace officer, the person stopped or other persons who are present. [1973 c.836 §31; 1997 c.866 §1; 2022 c.78 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 355 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: State v. Hall, 115 P.3d 908 (Or. 2005).
State v. Hall, 115 P.3d 908 (Or. 2005). · cites it 44× “This court also previously has explained that the analysis under ORS 131.615 (1995) and Article I, section 9, is substantially the same.”
State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 389 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2017). · cites it 16× “Second, as appropriate, this court will borrow from its decisions applying the reasonable-suspicion standard contained in the statutes authorizing criminal investigative stops, ORS 131.615 and ORS 131.605(6), 2 when analyzing the reasonable-suspicion standard that applies in…”
State v. Tourtillot, 618 P.2d 423 (Or. 1980). · cites it 23× “The decision in this case turns on the applicability of ORS 131.615 and the requirements of the state and federal constitutions.”
State v. Tourtillott, 618 P.2d 423 (Or. 1980). · cites it 23× “The decision in this case turns on the applicability of ORS 131.615 and the requirements of the state and federal constitutions.”
State v. Ehly, 854 P.2d 421 (Or. 1993). · cites it 9× “The question is whether, under all the circumstances, the *80 facts known to the officers were sufficient to give the officers a reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed a crime.”
State v. Jackson, 677 P.2d 21 (Or. 1984). · cites it 17× “ORS 131.615 appears to codify the constitutional limitation: `* * * `(2) The detention and inquiry shall be conducted in the vicinity of the stop and for no longer than a reasonable time.”
State v. Arreola-Botello, 451 P.3d 939 (Or. 2019). · cites it 5× “Relevant to this case, as part of the enactment intended to codify Cloman, the legislature specified in ORS 131.615 that an officer “who reasonably suspects that a per- son has committed or is about to commit a crime may stop the person and * * * make a reasonable inquiry.”
State v. Carter, 578 P.2d 790 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 14× “The Supreme Court held the stop invalid on statutory grounds, ORS 131.615, concluding that there was not sufficient reasonable suspicion of connection with criminal activity.”
State v. Valdez, 561 P.2d 1006 (Or. 1977). · cites it 8× “An officer's authority to stop and interrogate a person concerning his possible commission *1009 of a crime is covered by ORS 131.615, which states: "(1) A peace officer who reasonably suspects that a person has committed a crime may stop the person and, after informing the…”
State v. Boyanovsky, 743 P.2d 711 (Or. 1987). · cites it 14× “Normally, stops of persons suspected of crime are governed by ORS 131.615, which provides: "(1) A peace officer who reasonably suspects that a person has committed a crime may stop the person and, after informing the person that the peace officer is a peace officer, make a…”
State v. Davis, 666 P.2d 802 (Or. 1983). · cites it 7× “Valdez, supra , as requiring suppression of evidence only if *809 the noncompliance with ORS 131.615 also was unconstitutional, we reaffirmed the contrary holding in a per curiam reversal.”
State v. Watson, 305 P.3d 94 (Or. 2013). · cites it 7× “ORS 131.615. 9 See State v. Valdez, 7 Or 621 , 624-26, 561 P2d 1006 (1977) (describing origin of stop statutes); see also Fair, 353 Or at 602 -03 n 7 (same).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.615(1) — 183 cases
State v. Hall, 115 P.3d 908 (Or. 2005). “This court also previously has explained that the analysis under ORS 131.615 (1995) and Article I, section 9, is substantially the same.”
State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 389 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2017). “Second, as appropriate, this court will borrow from its decisions applying the reasonable-suspicion standard contained in the statutes authorizing criminal investigative stops, ORS 131.615 and ORS 131.605(6), 2 when analyzing the reasonable-suspicion standard that applies in…”
State v. Ehly, 854 P.2d 421 (Or. 1993). “The question is whether, under all the circumstances, the *80 facts known to the officers were sufficient to give the officers a reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed a crime.”
State v. Holdorf, 333 P.3d 982 (Or. 2014).
State v. Black, 721 P.2d 842 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.615(2) — 18 cases
State v. Arreola-Botello, 451 P.3d 939 (Or. 2019). “Relevant to this case, as part of the enactment intended to codify Cloman, the legislature specified in ORS 131.615 that an officer “who reasonably suspects that a per- son has committed or is about to commit a crime may stop the person and * * * make a reasonable inquiry.”
State v. Lowry, 667 P.2d 996 (Or. 1983).
State v. Watson, 305 P.3d 94 (Or. 2013). “ORS 131.615. 9 See State v. Valdez, 7 Or 621 , 624-26, 561 P2d 1006 (1977) (describing origin of stop statutes); see also Fair, 353 Or at 602 -03 n 7 (same).”
State v. Smith, 698 P.2d 973 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Toevs, 964 P.2d 1007 (Or. 1998).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.615(3) — 22 cases
State v. Nevel, 868 P.2d 1338 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Watson, 305 P.3d 94 (Or. 2013). “ORS 131.615. 9 See State v. Valdez, 7 Or 621 , 624-26, 561 P2d 1006 (1977) (describing origin of stop statutes); see also Fair, 353 Or at 602 -03 n 7 (same).”
State v. Bailey, 924 P.2d 833 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Miller, 340 P.3d 740 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. McConnville, 679 P.2d 1373 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.615(3)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Arreola-Botello, 451 P.3d 939 (Or. 2019). “Relevant to this case, as part of the enactment intended to codify Cloman, the legislature specified in ORS 131.615 that an officer “who reasonably suspects that a per- son has committed or is about to commit a crime may stop the person and * * * make a reasonable inquiry.”
State v. Bush, 126 P.3d 705 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.615(3)(b) — 1 case
State v. Bush, 126 P.3d 705 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.615(3)(c) — 1 case
State v. Davis, 322 Or. App. 606 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.615(5) — 5 cases
State v. Watson, 305 P.3d 94 (Or. 2013). “ORS 131.615. 9 See State v. Valdez, 7 Or 621 , 624-26, 561 P2d 1006 (1977) (describing origin of stop statutes); see also Fair, 353 Or at 602 -03 n 7 (same).”
State v. Kreis, 451 P.3d 954 (Or. 2019).
State v. Hebrard, 260 P.3d 759 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Medinger, 230 P.3d 76 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Fair, 225 P.3d 848 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.