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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.235 (2026)

Arrest by peace officer; procedure

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

      133.235 Arrest by peace officer; procedure. (1) A peace officer may arrest a person for a crime at any hour of any day or night.

      (2) A peace officer may arrest a person for a crime, pursuant to ORS 133.310 (1), whether or not such crime was committed within the geographical area of such peace officer’s employment, and the peace officer may make such arrest within the state, regardless of the situs of the offense.

      (3) The officer shall inform the person to be arrested of the officer’s authority and reason for the arrest, and, if the arrest is under a warrant, shall show the warrant, unless the officer encounters physical resistance, flight or other factors rendering this procedure impracticable, in which case the arresting officer shall inform the arrested person and show the warrant, if any, as soon as practicable.

      (4) In order to make an arrest, a peace officer may use physical force as justifiable under ORS 161.233, 161.242 and 161.245.

      (5) In order to make an arrest, a peace officer may enter premises in which the officer has probable cause to believe the person to be arrested to be present.

      (6) If after giving notice of the officer’s identity, authority and purpose, the officer is not admitted, the officer may enter the premises, and by a breaking, if necessary.

      (7) A person may not be arrested for a violation except to the extent provided by ORS 153.039 and 810.410. [1973 c.836 §71; 1981 c.818 §1; 1999 c.1051 §67; 2020 s.s.2 c.3 §12]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: State v. Ford, 801 P.2d 754 (Or. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ford, 801 P.2d 754 (Or. 1990). · cites it 40× “[9] In the alternative, the state argues that, even if the entry violated ORS 133.235, the evidence seized should not be excluded because the police inevitably would have discovered it if they had complied with that statute.”
State v. Jordan, 605 P.2d 646 (Or. 1980). · cites it 6× “The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's conviction in an opinion that focused principally on the question of whether the officers had probable cause to believe Sandra Jordan was still in the residence after they had taken defendant into custody. 36 Or. App. 45 , 583 P.2d 1161…”
State v. Owens, 729 P.2d 524 (Or. 1986). · cites it 2× “ORS 133.235, 133.310. Not infrequently, an officer will have probable cause to arrest a suspect for more than one offense.”
State v. Davis, 666 P.2d 802 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “2d 681 (1968), we have held that evidence seized under a warrant would not be suppressed because of the officers' failure to comply with the statutory requirement to identify themselves before forcing entry.”
State v. Dahl, 915 P.2d 979 (Or. 1996). · cites it 4× “2d 670 (stating that principle under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and holding that the application of ORS 133.235(5) [8] would be an unconstitutional application where there are no exigent circumstances); [9] Payton v.”
State v. Olson, 598 P.2d 670 (Or. 1979). · cites it 3× “235(5) is constitutional if applied to permit police entry under the facts of this case.”
State v. Arce, 730 P.2d 1260 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “However, Bishop dealt with ORS 133.235, the statute on arrest warrants, not ORS 133.”
State v. Flores, 685 P.2d 999 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “ORS 133.235; ORS 133.310. The crime for which the officer has probable cause need not be the crime for which the arrestee is ultimately charged or even the one for which the officer makes the arrest.”
State v. Milligan, 748 P.2d 130 (Or. 1988). · cites it 2× “The arresting officer must follow the procedures set out in ORS 133.235(3), which provides: "The officer [making an arrest] shall inform the person to be arrested of the officer's authority and reason for the arrest, and, if the arrest is under a warrant, shall show the warrant,…”
State v. Munro, 772 P.2d 1353 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 5× “Under ORS 133.235(5), [2] police may enter premises to make an arrest only if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested is present.”
Box v. Oregon State Police, 492 P.3d 685 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “Given the undisputed fact of the troopers’ warrant- less entry, the troopers trespassed unless that entry was authorized by exigent circumstances, the need for emer- gency aid, or express or implied consent.8 Thus, the question 8 As noted, ORS 133.”
State v. Huffman, 621 P.2d 78 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “) The Commentary to the Proposed Oregon Criminal Procedure Code in regard to ORS 133.235 explains that: « * * * * * "Subsection (2) is an effort to remedy the dilemma faced by a peace officer who makes or tries to make a probable cause warrantless arrest outside his own…”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.235(1) — 1 case
State v. Tyler, 7 P.3d 624 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.235(2) — 5 cases
State v. Berg, 652 P.2d 1272 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
State v. Calderon, 678 P.2d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
State v. Huffman, 621 P.2d 78 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “) The Commentary to the Proposed Oregon Criminal Procedure Code in regard to ORS 133.235 explains that: « * * * * * "Subsection (2) is an effort to remedy the dilemma faced by a peace officer who makes or tries to make a probable cause warrantless arrest outside his own…”
State v. Russell, 343 Or. App. 573 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Russell, 343 Or. App. 573 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.235(3) — 5 cases
State v. Milligan, 748 P.2d 130 (Or. 1988). “The arresting officer must follow the procedures set out in ORS 133.235(3), which provides: "The officer [making an arrest] shall inform the person to be arrested of the officer's authority and reason for the arrest, and, if the arrest is under a warrant, shall show the warrant,…”
State v. Schmidtke, 417 P.3d 563 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Gillispie, 436 P.3d 65 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Meier, 314 P.3d 359 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Langevin, 748 P.2d 139 (Or. 1988).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.235(4) — 1 case
State v. Oliphant, 218 P.3d 1281 (Or. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.235(5) — 20 cases
State v. Jordan, 605 P.2d 646 (Or. 1980). “The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's conviction in an opinion that focused principally on the question of whether the officers had probable cause to believe Sandra Jordan was still in the residence after they had taken defendant into custody. 36 Or. App. 45 , 583 P.2d 1161…”
State v. Dahl, 915 P.2d 979 (Or. 1996). “2d 670 (stating that principle under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and holding that the application of ORS 133.235(5) [8] would be an unconstitutional application where there are no exigent circumstances); [9] Payton v.”
State v. Ford, 801 P.2d 754 (Or. 1990). “[9] In the alternative, the state argues that, even if the entry violated ORS 133.235, the evidence seized should not be excluded because the police inevitably would have discovered it if they had complied with that statute.”
State v. Olson, 598 P.2d 670 (Or. 1979). “235(5) is constitutional if applied to permit police entry under the facts of this case.”
State v. Munro, 772 P.2d 1353 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “Under ORS 133.235(5), [2] police may enter premises to make an arrest only if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested is present.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.235(6) — 5 cases
State v. Ford, 801 P.2d 754 (Or. 1990). “[9] In the alternative, the state argues that, even if the entry violated ORS 133.235, the evidence seized should not be excluded because the police inevitably would have discovered it if they had complied with that statute.”
State v. Davis, 666 P.2d 802 (Or. 1983). “2d 681 (1968), we have held that evidence seized under a warrant would not be suppressed because of the officers' failure to comply with the statutory requirement to identify themselves before forcing entry.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Qutub, 706 P.2d 962 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Tweed, 663 P.2d 38 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
State v. Bost, 837 P.2d 536 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.235(7) — 1 case
State v. Brown, 149 P.3d 294 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
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.