133.455
Receipts for property taken from person in custody; penalty. (1) Whenever any jailer, peace
officer or health officer takes or receives any money or other valuables from
any person in custody for safekeeping or for other purposes, the officer or
jailer receiving such valuables or money forthwith shall tender one of
duplicate receipts for the property being surrendered to the person in custody.
If possible, the person in custody shall countersign both the original and
duplicate receipts. If the person is unable to sign the receipts or receive the
duplicate thereof, the same shall be signed by and delivered to the person when
reasonably possible. A file of the original receipts shall be kept for at least
six months after the money or valuables have been returned to the person in
custody, the agent or representative of the person or other person entitled to
the same.
(2) A person
violating any of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section commits a
Class B misdemeanor. [Formerly 142.210]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case:
State v. Mundt, 780 P.2d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
State v. Mundt, 780 P.2d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Because wallets or purses are primarily intended to be used to store valuables, it may be important to discover what is in them, both to protect the owner's property and to prevent the assertion of false claims against the police.”
State v. Johnson, 958 P.2d 887 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “See ORS 133.455. Both are legitimate purposes for inventories of impounded property.”
State v. Hoskinson, 879 P.2d 180 (Or. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Under the Atkinson "inventory search" rationale, an officer should be able to open a wallet or purse incident to arrest because of the first two justifications listed above which justify opening a wallet or purse when the arrestee is being booked.”
State v. Florance, 527 P.2d 1202 (Or. 1974).
· cites it 2× “For all of these reasons, we hold that the search of this defendant and the seizure of the drugs found in the course of that search were not unreasonable; that the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the drugs taken from him at that time; that such…”
State v. Lippert, 829 P.2d 1020 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “* * * It is * * * reasonable for the booking officer to inventory ( see ORS 133.455) the property of the intoxicated person when he will be held in jail, even though not booked for a crime, in order to protect his property and to maintain the security of the detention facility.”
State v. Lawrence, 648 P.2d 1332 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “It is also reasonable for the booking officer to inventory (see ORS 133.455 8 ) the property of the intoxicated person when he will be held in jail, even though not booked for a crime, in order to protect his property and to maintain the security of the detention facility.”
State v. Perry, 688 P.2d 827 (Or. 1984).
“* * * It is * * * reasonable for the booking officer to inventory [see ORS 133.455] the property of the intoxicated person when he will be held in jail, even though not booked for a crime, in order to protect his property and to maintain the security of the detention facility.”
State v. Bean, 946 P.2d 292 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
““(2) The purpose of the inventory of a person in police custody shall be to: “(a) Promptly identify property to establish accountability and avoid spurious claims to property; or “(b) Fulfill the requirements of ORS 133.455 to the extent that such statute may apply to certain…”
State v. Wilcox, 560 P.3d 91 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Fulfill the requirements of ORS 133.455 [requiring receipts for the values taken into custody] to the extent that such statute may apply to certain property held by the deputy for safekeeping; “3.”
State v. Layman, 935 P.2d 1216 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 5× “076 and ORS 133.455, the authority for local correctional facilities to adopt inventory policies.”
State v. May, 986 P.2d 608 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“Fulfill the requirements of ORS 133.455 to the extent that such statute may apply to certain property held by the police officer for safekeeping; or “3.”
State v. Wilcox, 374 Or. 498 (Or. 2025).
“* * * It is * * * reasonable for the booking officer to inventory [see ORS 133.455] the property of the intoxicated person when he will be held in jail, even though not booked for a crime, in order to protect his property and to maintain the secu- rity of the detention facility.”
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.