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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.555 (2026)

Hearing

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

      133.555 Hearing. (1) Before acting on the application, the judge may examine on oath the affiants, and the applicant and any witnesses the applicant may produce, and may call such witnesses as the judge considers necessary to a decision. The judge shall make and keep a record of any testimony taken before the judge. The record shall be admissible as evidence on any motion to suppress.

      (2) If the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of ORS 133.545 and that, on the basis of the record made before the judge, there is probable cause to believe that the search will discover things specified in the application and subject to seizure under ORS 133.535, the judge shall issue a search warrant based on the finding of the judge and in accordance with the requirements of ORS 133.545 to 133.615. If the judge does not so find, the judge shall deny the application.

      (3) The judge may orally authorize a police officer, a district attorney or a special agent employed under ORS 131.805 to sign the judge’s name on a duplicate original warrant. A duplicate original warrant shall be a search warrant for the purposes of ORS 133.535 to 133.615, and it shall be returned to the judge as provided in ORS 133.615. In such cases a judge shall enter on the face of the original warrant the exact time of the issuance of the warrant and shall sign and file the original warrant in the manner provided by law.

      (4) Until the warrant is executed, the proceedings upon application for a search warrant shall be conducted with secrecy appropriate to the circumstances. [1973 c.836 §84; 2009 c.334 §2]

 

      133.560 [Repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Moylett, 836 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Moylett, 836 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1992). · cites it 8× “ORS 133.555(2) provides: "If the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of ORS 133.”
State v. Carter/Grant, 848 P.2d 599 (Or. 1993). · cites it 6× “) ORS 133.555(2) provides: " If the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of ORS 133.”
State v. Flores, 685 P.2d 999 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “545(4); ORS 133.555(3). The Washington Supreme Court has recently held, under that state's constitution, that the availability of a telephonic warrant is relevant to determining whether there are exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search.”
State v. Lee, 532 P.3d 894 (Or. 2023). · cites it 6× “In context, however, we think the better reading is one that permits “play in the joints” as to whether the facts and cir- cumstances set out are sufficient to establish that there is probable cause to search in compliance with ORS 133.555 and ORS 133.545(6). Ultimately, the…”
State v. Stevens, 806 P.2d 92 (Or. 1991). · cites it 2× “545(5) and ORS 133.555(3). 7 This court recognizes that one relevant factor in assessing whether an exigent circumstance exists is the *130 availability of a telephonic warrant.”
State v. Russell, 650 P.2d 79 (Or. 1982). · cites it 5× “” An alternative or supplemental means of establishing probable cause is provided by ORS 133.555(1) which authorizes an issuing magistrate to hear and record the testimony of witnesses: “Before acting on the application, the judge may examine on oath the affiants, and the…”
State v. Henderson, 142 P.3d 58 (Or. 2006). · cites it 3× “545 and ORS 133.555 govern the issuance of search warrants.”
State v. Castilleja, 192 P.3d 1283 (Or. 2008). · cites it 2× “ORS 133.555(1). In that case, the magistrate or judge may make factual findings, and a reviewing court would be bound by those findings as well as all reasonable inferences to be *264 drawn from them that are consistent with the magistrate’s or judge’s ultimate conclusion.”
State v. Evans, 822 P.2d 1198 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 5× “Both purposes are expressed in ORS 133.555(1), which concludes: “The record shall be admissible as evidence on any motion to *54 suppress.”
State v. Lowry, 667 P.2d 996 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “" ORS 133.555(3) authorizes a judge to orally instruct a police officer to sign the judge's name on a duplicate original warrant: "The judge may orally authorize a police officer or a district attorney to sign the judge's name on a duplicate original warrant.”
State v. Villagran, 657 P.2d 1223 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “She argues instead that they are insufficient to have justified issuance of the warrant. Our function, when faced with such an argument, is to determine whether a neutral and detached magistrate could conclude, based on the facts and circumstances shown by the affidavit, that…”
State v. Anspach, 692 P.2d 602 (Or. 1984). · cites it 2× “” ORS 133.555(2). The legislature has not defined the term probable cause to search, as it has probable cause to arrest.”
Show all 79 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.555(1) — 16 cases
State v. Russell, 650 P.2d 79 (Or. 1982). “” An alternative or supplemental means of establishing probable cause is provided by ORS 133.555(1) which authorizes an issuing magistrate to hear and record the testimony of witnesses: “Before acting on the application, the judge may examine on oath the affiants, and the…”
State v. Pelster/Boyer, 21 P.3d 106 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Castilleja, 192 P.3d 1283 (Or. 2008). “ORS 133.555(1). In that case, the magistrate or judge may make factual findings, and a reviewing court would be bound by those findings as well as all reasonable inferences to be *264 drawn from them that are consistent with the magistrate’s or judge’s ultimate conclusion.”
State v. Farrar, 786 P.2d 161 (Or. 1990).
State v. Villagran, 657 P.2d 1223 (Or. 1983). “She argues instead that they are insufficient to have justified issuance of the warrant. Our function, when faced with such an argument, is to determine whether a neutral and detached magistrate could conclude, based on the facts and circumstances shown by the affidavit, that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.555(2) — 53 cases
State v. Moylett, 836 P.2d 1329 (Or. 1992). “ORS 133.555(2) provides: "If the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of ORS 133.”
State v. Carter/Grant, 848 P.2d 599 (Or. 1993). “) ORS 133.555(2) provides: " If the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of ORS 133.”
State v. Lee, 532 P.3d 894 (Or. 2023). “In context, however, we think the better reading is one that permits “play in the joints” as to whether the facts and cir- cumstances set out are sufficient to establish that there is probable cause to search in compliance with ORS 133.555 and ORS 133.545(6). Ultimately, the…”
State v. Anspach, 692 P.2d 602 (Or. 1984). “” ORS 133.555(2). The legislature has not defined the term probable cause to search, as it has probable cause to arrest.”
State v. Henderson, 142 P.3d 58 (Or. 2006). “545 and ORS 133.555 govern the issuance of search warrants.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.555(3) — 10 cases
State v. Flores, 685 P.2d 999 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “545(4); ORS 133.555(3). The Washington Supreme Court has recently held, under that state's constitution, that the availability of a telephonic warrant is relevant to determining whether there are exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search.”
State v. Stevens, 806 P.2d 92 (Or. 1991). “545(5) and ORS 133.555(3). 7 This court recognizes that one relevant factor in assessing whether an exigent circumstance exists is the *130 availability of a telephonic warrant.”
State v. Lowry, 667 P.2d 996 (Or. 1983). “" ORS 133.555(3) authorizes a judge to orally instruct a police officer to sign the judge's name on a duplicate original warrant: "The judge may orally authorize a police officer or a district attorney to sign the judge's name on a duplicate original warrant.”
State v. Martin/Dills, 12 P.3d 548 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Evans, 822 P.2d 1198 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “Both purposes are expressed in ORS 133.555(1), which concludes: “The record shall be admissible as evidence on any motion to *54 suppress.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.555(4) — 2 cases
State v. Callaghan, 576 P.2d 14 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
State v. Monger, 472 P.3d 270 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
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.