Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.033 (2026)

Peace officer; community caretaking functions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

133.033 Peace officer; community caretaking functions. (1) Except as otherwise expressly prohibited by law, any peace officer is authorized to perform community caretaking functions.

(2) As used in this section, “community caretaking functions” means any lawful acts that are inherent in the duty of the peace officer to serve and protect the public. “Community caretaking functions” includes, but is not limited to:

(a) The right to enter or remain upon the premises of another if it reasonably appears to be necessary to:

(A) Prevent serious harm to any person or property;

(B) Render aid to injured or ill persons; or

(b) The right to stop or redirect traffic or aid motorists or other persons when such action reasonably appears to be necessary to:

(A) Prevent serious harm to any person or property;

(B) Render aid to injured or ill persons; or

(3) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of a peace officer that is inherent in the office or that is granted by any other provision of law. [1991 c.959 §1; 2011 c.506 §9; 2011 c.644 §14]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 44 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: State v. Backstrand, 313 P.3d 1084 (Or. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Backstrand, 313 P.3d 1084 (Or. 2013). · cites it 14× “ORS 133.033 provides: “(1) Except as otherwise expressly prohibited by law, any peace officer of this state is authorized to perform com- munity caretaking functions.”

State v. Martin, 193 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 18× “The state responds that the court correctly determined that she consented and that, in the alternative, the entry was authorized by the community caretaking statute, ORS 133.033. In a cross-assignment of error, the state contends that the entry was lawful under the “emergency…”

State v. Dahl, 915 P.2d 979 (Or. 1996). · cites it 10× “Whatever the meaning of "lawful acts" in the context of ORS 133.033, that meaning must be consonant with the state and federal constitutions.”

State v. Goodall, 183 P.3d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 12× “2 In addition, defendant argued that ORS 133.033, the community caretaking statute, did not apply.”

State v. Christenson, 45 P.3d 511 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “The state asserted that the evidence was admissible because the officers obtained it through their entry into defendant’s home under the authority of the community caretaker statute, ORS 133.033, which excused them from the otherwise applicable requirement of the state and…”

State v. Mazzola, 242 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 9× “Before their consolidated trial, defendant and his wife moved to suppress the marijuana evidence, arguing that the officers’ initial warrantless entry into the mobile home was not justified under the “community caretaking” statute, ORS 133.033, 2 or the “emergency aid” exception…”

State v. Pierce, 203 P.3d 343 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “In the latter regard, the state invokes the "community caretaking" statute, ORS 133.033, which permits an officer to enter "upon the premises of another if it reasonably appears to be necessary" in order to "[p]revent serious harm to any person" or to "[r]ender aid to injured or…”

State v. Chambers, 203 P.3d 337 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “1 The state argued that the interaction between the officer and defendant did not constitute a stop and that, even if it was a stop, the stop was authorized because the officer was engaging in community caretaking functions under ORS 133.033. The state also responded to…”

State v. Snyder, 206 P.3d 1083 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “The court based its ruling on ORS 133.033, known as the “community caretaking” statute.”

State v. Salisbury, 196 P.3d 1017 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “The state contended that the entry was lawful under the emergency aid doctrine and the community care-taking statute, ORS 133.033. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, reasoning: “If you evaluate the officers’ actions at the point where [defendant] locked that door and…”

State v. Kreis, 451 P.3d 954 (Or. 2019). · cites it 2× “The court thus assumed that the officers were in violation of defendant’s Article I, section 9, rights when they gave orders to defendant and other family members in response to reasonable threats to the officers’ safety.”

State v. Anfield, 836 P.2d 1337 (Or. 1992). · cites it 4× “[2] This case arose before the Legislative Assembly enacted into law ORS 133.033, and is considered apart from that statute.”

Show all 44 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.033(1) — 4 cases

State v. Backstrand, 313 P.3d 1084 (Or. 2013). “ORS 133.033 provides: “(1) Except as otherwise expressly prohibited by law, any peace officer of this state is authorized to perform com- munity caretaking functions.”

State v. Dahl, 915 P.2d 979 (Or. 1996). “Whatever the meaning of "lawful acts" in the context of ORS 133.033, that meaning must be consonant with the state and federal constitutions.”

State v. Goodall, 183 P.3d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “2 In addition, defendant argued that ORS 133.033, the community caretaking statute, did not apply.”

Sivik v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 231 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.033(2) — 7 cases

State v. Dahl, 915 P.2d 979 (Or. 1996). “Whatever the meaning of "lawful acts" in the context of ORS 133.033, that meaning must be consonant with the state and federal constitutions.”

State v. Kreis, 451 P.3d 954 (Or. 2019). “The court thus assumed that the officers were in violation of defendant’s Article I, section 9, rights when they gave orders to defendant and other family members in response to reasonable threats to the officers’ safety.”

State v. Mazzola, 242 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “Before their consolidated trial, defendant and his wife moved to suppress the marijuana evidence, arguing that the officers’ initial warrantless entry into the mobile home was not justified under the “community caretaking” statute, ORS 133.033, 2 or the “emergency aid” exception…”

State v. Martin, 193 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “The state responds that the court correctly determined that she consented and that, in the alternative, the entry was authorized by the community caretaking statute, ORS 133.033. In a cross-assignment of error, the state contends that the entry was lawful under the “emergency…”

State v. Lange, 329 P.3d 797 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.033(2)(a) — 4 cases

State v. Christenson, 45 P.3d 511 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “The state asserted that the evidence was admissible because the officers obtained it through their entry into defendant’s home under the authority of the community caretaker statute, ORS 133.033, which excused them from the otherwise applicable requirement of the state and…”

State v. Goodall, 183 P.3d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “2 In addition, defendant argued that ORS 133.033, the community caretaking statute, did not apply.”

State v. Salisbury, 196 P.3d 1017 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “The state contended that the entry was lawful under the emergency aid doctrine and the community care-taking statute, ORS 133.033. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, reasoning: “If you evaluate the officers’ actions at the point where [defendant] locked that door and…”

State v. Scheirman, 433 P.3d 761 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.033(2)(a)(A) — 3 cases

State v. Pierce, 203 P.3d 343 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “In the latter regard, the state invokes the "community caretaking" statute, ORS 133.033, which permits an officer to enter "upon the premises of another if it reasonably appears to be necessary" in order to "[p]revent serious harm to any person" or to "[r]ender aid to injured or…”

State v. Goodall, 183 P.3d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “2 In addition, defendant argued that ORS 133.033, the community caretaking statute, did not apply.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.033(2)(a)(B) — 1 case

State v. Premsingh, 962 P.2d 732 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.033(2)(b)(B) — 1 case

Sivik v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 231 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.033(3) — 1 case

State v. Dahl, 915 P.2d 979 (Or. 1996). “Whatever the meaning of "lawful acts" in the context of ORS 133.033, that meaning must be consonant with the state and federal constitutions.”

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.