Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.225 (2026)

Arrest by private person

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

      133.225 Arrest by private person. (1) A private person may arrest another person for any crime committed in the presence of the private person if the private person has probable cause to believe the arrested person committed the crime. A private person making such an arrest shall, without unnecessary delay, take the arrested person before a magistrate or deliver the arrested person to a peace officer.

      (2) In order to make the arrest a private person may use physical force as is justifiable under ORS 161.255. [1973 c.836 §74]

 

      133.230 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1977–2016 · leading case: State v. Bonds, 653 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bonds, 653 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 4× “Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.225 . The arrest of defendant was not for an offense committed in their presence and therefore violated Oregon statutes.”
Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 40 P.3d 1059 (Or. 2002). · cites it 2× “The Court of Appeals found evidence in those statutes that Oregonians “value” a safe and orderly community, and share a “common concern” for reliable and effective law enforcement by citizen officers, particularly at large public events where there is little or no police…”
Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 980 P.2d 1147 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “) Defendant contends that public policy discourages arrests by private citizens because ORS 133.225 limits such arrests to "crimes committed in the presence of the private person" and with probable cause, whereas ORS 133.”
State v. Swanson, 266 P.3d 45 (Or. 2011). “In the course of the same discussions, a member of the commission suggested that the use of the word “crime” in ORS 133.225, pertaining to the authority of private persons to make citizen’s arrests, “was intentional and it should not be changed to ‘offense.”
State v. Scatchard, 145 P.3d 237 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “For that reason, defendant asserts that any evidence flowing from his contact with the officer should be suppressed. The state contended that defendant was not seized by the volunteer firefighters, and, even if he was, the seizure was authorized as a citizen’s arrest under ORS…”
State v. Adams, 738 P.2d 988 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “See ORS 133.225. 2 The trial court found *142 that Hikade had probable cause to arrest defendant and that the subsequent five to ten minute interrogation was conducted in a reasonable manner.”
Hatfield v. Gracen, 567 P.2d 546 (Or. 1977). “Plaintiff also contends that no crime was committed in defendant’s presence so as to authorize an arrest under ORS 133.225. 4 The defendant testified that his reason or purpose in firing his gun was "to cause the fleeing vehicle to stop.”
State v. Keller, 379 P.3d 545 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “” Likewise, if Thompson could be said to he acting as a private citizen, he would have had authority under ORS 133.225(1) to arrest defendant only for a crime.”
State v. Chaput, 604 P.2d 435 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “ORS 133.225. Driving while under the influence of intoxicants is criminal in nature.”
O'Brien v. Eugene Chem. Exports, Inc., 664 P.2d 1106 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “Whether Retton’s arrest of plaintiffs was lawful is controlled by ORS 133.225(1), which provides: “A private person may arrest another person for any crime committed in his presence if he has probable cause to believe the arrested person committed the crime.”
Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 878 P.2d 1123 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “Here, unless the store in question is not of the kind that the cases have held must be open to petition activities, plaintiff committed no crime.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.225(1) — 4 cases
State v. Keller, 379 P.3d 545 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “” Likewise, if Thompson could be said to he acting as a private citizen, he would have had authority under ORS 133.225(1) to arrest defendant only for a crime.”
State v. Adams, 738 P.2d 988 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “See ORS 133.225. 2 The trial court found *142 that Hikade had probable cause to arrest defendant and that the subsequent five to ten minute interrogation was conducted in a reasonable manner.”
O'Brien v. Eugene Chem. Exports, Inc., 664 P.2d 1106 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “Whether Retton’s arrest of plaintiffs was lawful is controlled by ORS 133.225(1), which provides: “A private person may arrest another person for any crime committed in his presence if he has probable cause to believe the arrested person committed the crime.”
State v. Scatchard, 145 P.3d 237 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “For that reason, defendant asserts that any evidence flowing from his contact with the officer should be suppressed. The state contended that defendant was not seized by the volunteer firefighters, and, even if he was, the seizure was authorized as a citizen’s arrest under ORS…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.225(2) — 2 cases
Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 40 P.3d 1059 (Or. 2002). “The Court of Appeals found evidence in those statutes that Oregonians “value” a safe and orderly community, and share a “common concern” for reliable and effective law enforcement by citizen officers, particularly at large public events where there is little or no police…”
Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 980 P.2d 1147 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “) Defendant contends that public policy discourages arrests by private citizens because ORS 133.225 limits such arrests to "crimes committed in the presence of the private person" and with probable cause, whereas ORS 133.”
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.