133.545
Issuance of search warrant; where executable; form of application. (1) A search warrant may be issued
only by a judge. A search warrant issued by a judge of the Supreme Court or the
Court of Appeals may be executed anywhere in the state. Except as otherwise
provided in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this section, a search warrant
issued by a judge of a circuit court may be executed only within the judicial
district in which the court is located. A search warrant issued by a justice of
the peace may be executed only within the county in which the justice court is
located. A search warrant issued by a municipal judge authorized to exercise
the powers and perform the duties of a justice of the peace may be executed
only in the municipality in which the court is located.
(2)
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a circuit court judge may
authorize execution of a search warrant outside the judicial district in which
the court is located, if the judge finds from the application that one or more
of the objects of the search relate to an offense committed or triable within
the judicial district in which the court is located or that the search involves
both conduct that occurred in the judicial district in which the court is
located and interrelated conduct that occurred in one or more other judicial
districts in this state. If a judge denies a search warrant for interrelated
conduct that occurred in more than one judicial district, an application for
the same search warrant may not be presented to a judge in another judicial
district unless the other judicial district is one in which one or more of the
objects of the search relate to an offense committed or triable within the
other judicial district. If the warrant authorizes the installation or tracking
of a mobile tracking device, the officer may track the device in any county to
which it is transported.
(3)
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a circuit court judge duly
assigned pursuant to ORS 1.615 to serve as a judge pro tempore in a circuit
court, or a senior judge duly assigned to serve in a circuit court under ORS
1.300 and who has authorization from the presiding judge of that judicial
district, may authorize execution of a search warrant in any judicial district
in which the judge is assigned to serve as judge pro tempore or as senior
judge.
(4)
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a circuit court judge may
authorize execution of a search warrant outside the judicial district in which
the court is located if the judge finds that:
(a) The search
relates to one of the following offenses involving a victim who was 65 years of
age or older at the time of the offense:
(A) Criminal
mistreatment in the first degree as described in ORS 163.205 (1)(b)(D) or (E);
(B) Identity
theft;
(C) Aggravated
identity theft;
(D) Computer
crime;
(E) Fraudulent
use of a credit card;
(F) Forgery in
any degree;
(G) Criminal
possession of a forged instrument in any degree;
(H) Theft in any
degree; or
(I) Aggravated
theft in the first degree;
(b) The objects
of the search consist of financial records; and
(c) The person
making application for the search warrant is not able to ascertain at the time
of the application the proper place of trial for the offense described in
paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(5) Application
for a search warrant may be made only by a district attorney, a police officer
or a special agent employed under ORS 131.805.
(6) The
application shall consist of a proposed warrant in conformance with ORS
133.565, and shall be supported by one or more affidavits particularly setting
forth the facts and circumstances tending to show that the objects of the
search are in the places, or in the possession of the individuals, to be
searched. If an affidavit is based in whole or in part on hearsay, the affiant
shall set forth facts bearing on any unnamed informant’s reliability and shall
disclose, as far as possible, the means by which the information was obtained.
(7) Instead of
the written affidavit described in subsection (6) of this section, the judge
may take an oral statement under oath. The oral statement shall be recorded and
a copy of the recording submitted to the judge who took the oral statement. In
such cases, the judge shall certify that the recording of the sworn oral
statement is a true recording of the oral statement under oath and shall retain
the recording as part of the record of proceedings for the issuance of the
warrant. The recording shall constitute an affidavit for the purposes of this
section. The applicant shall retain a copy of the recording and shall provide a
copy of the recording to the district attorney if the district attorney is not
the applicant.
(8)(a) In
addition to the procedure set out in subsection (7) of this section, the
proposed warrant and the affidavit may be sent to the court by facsimile
transmission or any similar electronic transmission that delivers a complete
printable image of the signed affidavit and proposed warrant. The affidavit may
have a notarized acknowledgment, or the affiant may swear to the affidavit by
telephone. If the affiant swears to the affidavit by telephone, the affidavit
may be signed electronically. A judge administering an oath telephonically
under this subsection must execute a declaration that recites the manner and
time of the oath’s administration. The declaration must be filed with the
return.
(b) When a court
issues a warrant upon an application made under paragraph (a) of this
subsection:
(A) The court may
transmit the signed warrant to the person making application under subsection
(5) of this section by means of facsimile transmission or similar electronic
transmission, as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection. The court shall
file the original signed warrant and a printed image of the application with
the return.
(B) The person
making application shall deliver the original signed affidavit to the court
with the return. If the affiant swore to the affidavit by telephone, the
affiant must so note next to the affiant’s signature on the affidavit. [1973
c.836 §83; 1985 c.344 §1; 1989 c.983 §3; 1995 c.658 §73; 1999 c.56 §1; 2007
c.547 §1; 2009 c.334 §1; 2013 c.155 §11; 2013 c.225 §1; 2015 c.415 §1; 2019
c.399 §7; 2023 c.216 §2; 2023 c.302 §3]
133.550 [Repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
174
cases (
22 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
State v. Worsham, 834 P.2d 1033 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Worsham, 834 P.2d 1033 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 44× “2d 161 (1990), only compounds the problem by holding that ORS 133.545 applies only to unnamed informants.”
State v. Lee, 532 P.3d 894 (Or. 2023).
· cites it 26× “Before trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence derived from the search warrant, relying on ORS 133.545 as well as the state and federal constitutions.”
State v. Pelster/Boyer, 21 P.3d 106 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 14× “ORS 133.545(4) requires that an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant "particularly set[ ] forth the facts and circumstances tending to show that the objects of the search are in the places, or in the possession of the individuals, to be searched.”
State v. Chamu-hernandez, 212 P.3d 514 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 14× “The state also argued that ORS 133.545 did not require any express findings to be made on the face of the warrant.”
State v. Farrar, 786 P.2d 161 (Or. 1990).
· cites it 7× “Defendant chal *144 lenges the affidavits’ sufficiency under ORS 133.545, under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, and under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. McCarthy, 501 P.3d 478 (Or. 2021).
· cites it 4× “When Brown was decided, ORS 133.545 authorized warrants based on oral statements, commonly referred to as “telephonic warrants,” but only when circumstances made it “impracticable for a district attorney or police offi- cer to obtain a warrant in person.”
State v. Russell, 650 P.2d 79 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 9× “” Another subsection of ORS 133.545, not directly involved in this case, is nevertheless pertinent as it reflects the legislative design.”
State v. Evans, 822 P.2d 1198 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 11× “The drafters also intended ORS 133.545 to reflect Fourth Amendment requirements “as expressed in existing and foreseeable decisions of the United States Supreme Court.”
State v. Johnson, 131 P.3d 173 (Or. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Defendant argues, in fact, that the search warrant affidavit improperly relies on hearsay statements by certain unnamed informants, (identified only as persons living in the Fraser household) without establishing the informants’ reliability or basis of knowledge, as ORS…”
Clay, Sara Kathrine, 391 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “"); Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.545 (6)(a) ("[T]he proposed warrant and the affidavit may be sent to the court by facsimile transmission or any similar electronic transmission that delivers a complete printable image of the signed affidavit and proposed warrant.”
State v. Christen/Hankins, 720 P.2d 1303 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 8× “They contend that the information provided by informants — described in paragraphs [1], [2] and [3] — cannot be *781 considered because the affidavit does not comply with former ORS 133.545(3) 2 and that the balance of the information does not constitute probable cause.”
State v. Dunning, 724 P.2d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 10× “) The drafters of ORS 133.545 only intended that the statutory requirement as to content of the allegations in an affidavit reflect the Fourth Amendment requirements as expressed in then existing and forseeable decisions of the United States Supreme Court.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.545(1) — 9 cases
State v. Lee, 532 P.3d 894 (Or. 2023).
“Before trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence derived from the search warrant, relying on ORS 133.545 as well as the state and federal constitutions.”
State v. Russell, 650 P.2d 79 (Or. 1982).
“” Another subsection of ORS 133.545, not directly involved in this case, is nevertheless pertinent as it reflects the legislative design.”
State v. Chamu-hernandez, 212 P.3d 514 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state also argued that ORS 133.545 did not require any express findings to be made on the face of the warrant.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.545(2) — 5 cases
State v. Chamu-hernandez, 212 P.3d 514 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state also argued that ORS 133.545 did not require any express findings to be made on the face of the warrant.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.545(3) — 30 cases
State v. Christen/Hankins, 720 P.2d 1303 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“They contend that the information provided by informants — described in paragraphs [1], [2] and [3] — cannot be *781 considered because the affidavit does not comply with former ORS 133.545(3) 2 and that the balance of the information does not constitute probable cause.”
State v. Russell, 650 P.2d 79 (Or. 1982).
“” Another subsection of ORS 133.545, not directly involved in this case, is nevertheless pertinent as it reflects the legislative design.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.545(4) — 88 cases
State v. Worsham, 834 P.2d 1033 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“2d 161 (1990), only compounds the problem by holding that ORS 133.545 applies only to unnamed informants.”
State v. Pelster/Boyer, 21 P.3d 106 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“ORS 133.545(4) requires that an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant "particularly set[ ] forth the facts and circumstances tending to show that the objects of the search are in the places, or in the possession of the individuals, to be searched.”
State v. Johnson, 131 P.3d 173 (Or. 2006).
“Defendant argues, in fact, that the search warrant affidavit improperly relies on hearsay statements by certain unnamed informants, (identified only as persons living in the Fraser household) without establishing the informants’ reliability or basis of knowledge, as ORS…”
State v. Dunning, 724 P.2d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“) The drafters of ORS 133.545 only intended that the statutory requirement as to content of the allegations in an affidavit reflect the Fourth Amendment requirements as expressed in then existing and forseeable decisions of the United States Supreme Court.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.545(5) — 21 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.545(6) — 18 cases
State v. Lee, 532 P.3d 894 (Or. 2023).
“Before trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence derived from the search warrant, relying on ORS 133.545 as well as the state and federal constitutions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.545(6)(a) — 1 case
Clay, Sara Kathrine, 391 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
“"); Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.545 (6)(a) ("[T]he proposed warrant and the affidavit may be sent to the court by facsimile transmission or any similar electronic transmission that delivers a complete printable image of the signed affidavit and proposed warrant.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.545(7) — 5 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.545(8) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.545(8)(b) — 1 case
State v. Lee, 532 P.3d 894 (Or. 2023).
“Before trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence derived from the search warrant, relying on ORS 133.545 as well as 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.