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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.565 (2026)

Contents of search warrant; time of execution; destruction of hoop houses

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

      133.565 Contents of search warrant; time of execution; destruction of hoop houses. (1) A search warrant shall be dated and shall be addressed to and authorize its execution by an officer authorized by law to execute search warrants.

      (2) The warrant shall state, or describe with particularity:

      (a) The identity of the judge issuing the warrant and the date the warrant was issued;

      (b) The name of the person to be searched, or the location and designation of the premises or places to be searched;

      (c) The things constituting the object of the search and authorized to be seized; and

      (d) The period of time, not to exceed five days, after execution of the warrant except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, within which the warrant is to be returned to the issuing authority.

      (3) Except as otherwise provided herein, the search warrant shall be executed between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and within five days from the date of issuance. The judge issuing the warrant may, however, by indorsement upon the face of the warrant, authorize its execution at any time of the day or night and may further authorize its execution after five days, but not more than 10 days from date of issuance.

      (4) When executing a search warrant issued to search a location at which there is probable cause to believe that the crime of unlawful production of marijuana is being committed, the police officer executing the search warrant may order the destruction of any hoop houses at the location if there is probable cause to believe that the hoop houses are being used in the commission of the unlawful production of marijuana. [1973 c.836 §85; 2025 c.285 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 82 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: State v. Ingram, 802 P.2d 656 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ingram, 802 P.2d 656 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 50× “In each of the cases on review, the defendant, in addition to the constitutional challenge, has argued that the warrant does not comply with ORS 133.565: "(2) The warrant shall state, or describe with particularity: "* * * * * "(b) The name of the person to be searched, or the…”
State v. Brock, 653 P.2d 543 (Or. 1982). · cites it 15× “*19 The commentary to the proposal for ORS 133.565, after acknowledging that the statute modifies existing law, states the legislative policy underlying the statute: “Subsection (3) contains an important innovation for Oregon Law.”
State v. Monger, 472 P.3d 270 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 24× “Defendant argues that the search war- rant that authorized a search of his computer and cell phone was not “executed” for purposes of the statutorily required timeframe in ORS 133.565. The state con- cedes that the trial court erred in accepting the nonunanimous jury verdict,…”
State v. Ingram, 831 P.2d 674 (Or. 1992). · cites it 15× “ORS 133.565 requires particularity precisely to prevent ambiguous warrants from inadvertently producing such unlawful searches.”
State v. Brock, 633 P.2d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 20× “The official commentary to ORS 133.565 recognizes that the new statute is a modification of Oregon Law: "Subsection (3) contains an important innovation for Oregon Law.”
State v. Reid, 872 P.2d 416 (Or. 1994). · cites it 12× “He argued, as pertinent here, that the search violated ORS 133.565 and Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, 3 because the “persons present” clause in the warrant was not sufficiently particular.”
State v. Tardie, 509 P.3d 705 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 10× “615 differently from that in ORS 133.565. 238 State v. Tardie As we have already concluded, Rosales executed the warrant within the statutory time frame.”
State v. Davis, 809 P.2d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 14× “585 provides, in part: "The scope of search shall be only such as is authorized by the warrant and is reasonably necessary to discover the persons or things specified therein.”
State v. Carter, 113 P.3d 969 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “565(2)(c) use the conjunctive “and” in stating that warrants must particularly describe the object of the search and the items to be seized, warrants necessarily must authorize both searches and seizures.”
State v. Chamu-hernandez, 212 P.3d 514 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “By contrast, ORS 133.565 delineates the specific and express statements that must be contained on the face of the warrant, including the name and location of persons and places to be searched, the items that may be searched or seized, and the period of time in which the warrant…”
State v. Munro, 124 P.3d 1221 (Or. 2005). · cites it 3× “However, in *551 this case, defendant’s various statutory arguments center on the warrant requirements set out in ORS 133.565(2). 9 In State v. Ingram, 313 Or 139, 143 , 831 P2d 674 (1992), this court observed that the ORS 133.”
State v. Walker, 258 P.3d 1228 (Or. 2011). “” In support, defendant cited the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, and ORS 133.565(2)(b), which sets out the particularity requirements of all search warrants.”
Show all 82 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.565(2) — 25 cases
State v. Carter, 113 P.3d 969 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “565(2)(c) use the conjunctive “and” in stating that warrants must particularly describe the object of the search and the items to be seized, warrants necessarily must authorize both searches and seizures.”
State v. Ingram, 831 P.2d 674 (Or. 1992). “ORS 133.565 requires particularity precisely to prevent ambiguous warrants from inadvertently producing such unlawful searches.”
State v. Ingram, 802 P.2d 656 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “In each of the cases on review, the defendant, in addition to the constitutional challenge, has argued that the warrant does not comply with ORS 133.565: "(2) The warrant shall state, or describe with particularity: "* * * * * "(b) The name of the person to be searched, or the…”
State v. Munro, 124 P.3d 1221 (Or. 2005). “However, in *551 this case, defendant’s various statutory arguments center on the warrant requirements set out in ORS 133.565(2). 9 In State v. Ingram, 313 Or 139, 143 , 831 P2d 674 (1992), this court observed that the ORS 133.”
State v. Davis, 809 P.2d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “585 provides, in part: "The scope of search shall be only such as is authorized by the warrant and is reasonably necessary to discover the persons or things specified therein.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.565(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Dalton, 887 P.2d 379 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.565(2)(b) — 21 cases
State v. Ingram, 802 P.2d 656 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “In each of the cases on review, the defendant, in addition to the constitutional challenge, has argued that the warrant does not comply with ORS 133.565: "(2) The warrant shall state, or describe with particularity: "* * * * * "(b) The name of the person to be searched, or the…”
State v. Reid, 872 P.2d 416 (Or. 1994). “He argued, as pertinent here, that the search violated ORS 133.565 and Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, 3 because the “persons present” clause in the warrant was not sufficiently particular.”
State v. Ingram, 831 P.2d 674 (Or. 1992). “ORS 133.565 requires particularity precisely to prevent ambiguous warrants from inadvertently producing such unlawful searches.”
State v. Davis, 809 P.2d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “585 provides, in part: "The scope of search shall be only such as is authorized by the warrant and is reasonably necessary to discover the persons or things specified therein.”
State v. Walker, 258 P.3d 1228 (Or. 2011). “” In support, defendant cited the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, and ORS 133.565(2)(b), which sets out the particularity requirements of all search warrants.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.565(2)(c) — 6 cases
State v. Carter, 113 P.3d 969 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “565(2)(c) use the conjunctive “and” in stating that warrants must particularly describe the object of the search and the items to be seized, warrants necessarily must authorize both searches and seizures.”
State v. Reger, 372 P.3d 26 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Beagles, 923 P.2d 1244 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Poitra, 136 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Miller, 72 P.3d 643 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.565(2)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Tardie, 509 P.3d 705 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “615 differently from that in ORS 133.565. 238 State v. Tardie As we have already concluded, Rosales executed the warrant within the statutory time frame.”
State v. Monger, 472 P.3d 270 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “Defendant argues that the search war- rant that authorized a search of his computer and cell phone was not “executed” for purposes of the statutorily required timeframe in ORS 133.565. The state con- cedes that the trial court erred in accepting the nonunanimous jury verdict,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.565(3) — 21 cases
State v. Brock, 653 P.2d 543 (Or. 1982). “*19 The commentary to the proposal for ORS 133.565, after acknowledging that the statute modifies existing law, states the legislative policy underlying the statute: “Subsection (3) contains an important innovation for Oregon Law.”
State v. Monger, 472 P.3d 270 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “Defendant argues that the search war- rant that authorized a search of his computer and cell phone was not “executed” for purposes of the statutorily required timeframe in ORS 133.565. The state con- cedes that the trial court erred in accepting the nonunanimous jury verdict,…”
State v. Brock, 633 P.2d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “The official commentary to ORS 133.565 recognizes that the new statute is a modification of Oregon Law: "Subsection (3) contains an important innovation for Oregon Law.”
State v. Tardie, 509 P.3d 705 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “615 differently from that in ORS 133.565. 238 State v. Tardie As we have already concluded, Rosales executed the warrant within the statutory time frame.”
Scott v. State, 782 A.2d 862 (Md. 2001).
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.