133.575
Execution of warrant.
(1) Except as provided in ORS 136.583, a search warrant may be executed only
within the period and at the times authorized by the warrant and only by a
police officer. A police officer charged with its execution may be accompanied
by such other persons as may be reasonably necessary for the successful
execution of the warrant with all practicable safety. Other persons may
include, but are not limited to:
(a) Civil
enforcement officers;
(b) Victim
services providers;
(c) Law
enforcement agency personnel other than police officers;
(d) Employees of
a utility company;
(e) The State
Fire Marshal and assistants to the State Fire Marshal, as described in ORS
476.060;
(f) Employees of
a county animal shelter or other animal care agency;
(g) Towers;
(h) Personnel
from federal, state or local regulatory agencies;
(i) Emergency
medical services providers, as defined in ORS 682.025; and
(j) Contractors
and other persons assisting with the destruction of waste.
(2) The executing
officer shall, before entering the premises, give appropriate notice of the
identity, authority and purpose of the officer to the person to be searched, or
to the person in apparent control of the premises to be searched, as the case
may be.
(3) Except as
provided in ORS 133.619, before undertaking any search or seizure pursuant to
the warrant, the executing officer shall read and give a copy of the warrant to
the person to be searched, or to the person in apparent control of the premises
to be searched. If the premises are unoccupied or there is no one in apparent
control, the officer shall leave a copy of the warrant suitably affixed to the
premises. [1973 c.836 §86; 1989 c.983 §4; 2009 c.617 §2; 2023 c.216 §3]
133.585 [1973 c.836 §87; repealed by 1997
c.313 §37]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case:
State v. Ohling
State v. Ohling (1984)
orctapp · cites it 8×
“The state seeks to give them a special status because of their duty, under ORS 133.575, [5] to notify the person in apparent control of the premises to be searched before executing a warrant.”
State v. Arce (1986)
orctapp · cites it 12×
“235, the statute on arrest warrants, not ORS 133.575, the statute on search warrants.”
State v. Henderson (2006)
or · cites it 5×
“3 The Court of Appeals expressly did not reach defendant’s alternative argument that the search violated ORS 133.575(3). See Henderson, 200 Or App at 238 *224 n 9 (noting that court did not need to and therefore did not address defendant’s argument under ORS 133.”
State v. Bost (1993)
or · cites it 9×
“Defendants in these consolidated cases contend that the police 1 failed to comply with the requirements of Oregon’s “knock-and-announce” statute, ORS 133.575(2), 2 when entering premises to execute a search warrant.”
State v. Arnold (1992)
orctapp · cites it 10×
“” ORS 133.575 does not specifically require that officers knock before entering — it requires-that they provide “appropriate notice.”
State v. Ford (1990)
or · cites it 4×
“) No similar authority for a "no-knock" search warrant is explicitly found in ORS 133.575. Defendant does not argue that the officers should have applied for a "no-knock" endorsement on the arrest warrants.”
State v. Stalbert (1989)
orctapp · cites it 6×
“Jones had $1,163 in cash. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.”
State v. Greene (1979)
or · cites it 2×
“ORS 133.575. The scope of the search goes only so far as is "reasonably necessary" to discover the subjects within the granted authority to search, although other seizable items discovered within the scope of a valid search may be seized.”
State v. Henderson (2005)
orctapp · cites it 5×
“She asserts, principally, that (1) the warrant authorizing the search of her home was not supported by probable cause; and (2) in all events, the officers’ violation of ORS 133.575(3), 1 by failing to read the warrant to defendant before beginning their search, requires…”
State v. Wilson (1993)
orctapp · cites it 4×
“Both defendants moved to suppress the evidence obtained in the search, challenging the sufficiency of the affidavit supporting the search warrant and alleging that the police had violated ORS 133.575(2) in making their entry. The hearings on the motions were consolidated.”
State v. Berardinelli (1989)
orctapp · cites it 4×
“Defendants next argue that the execution of the warrant violated ORS 133.575(2) 2 and ORS 133.565(3) 3 and that the alleged violations require suppression.”
State v. Brock (1981)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“The dissent argues that the statutory rule limiting nighttime searches is analogous to the "knock and announce" rule (ORS 133.575(2)), which has been enforced by application of the constitutionally based, judicially announced exclusionary rule.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.575(1) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.575(2) — 16 cases
State v. Arce (1986)
orctapp
“235, the statute on arrest warrants, not ORS 133.575, the statute on search warrants.”
State v. Bost (1993)
or
“Defendants in these consolidated cases contend that the police 1 failed to comply with the requirements of Oregon’s “knock-and-announce” statute, ORS 133.575(2), 2 when entering premises to execute a search warrant.”
State v. Arnold (1992)
orctapp
“” ORS 133.575 does not specifically require that officers knock before entering — it requires-that they provide “appropriate notice.”
State v. Stalbert (1989)
orctapp
“Jones had $1,163 in cash. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.”
State v. Wilson (1993)
orctapp
“Both defendants moved to suppress the evidence obtained in the search, challenging the sufficiency of the affidavit supporting the search warrant and alleging that the police had violated ORS 133.575(2) in making their entry. The hearings on the motions were consolidated.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.575(3) — 8 cases
State v. Henderson (2006)
or
“3 The Court of Appeals expressly did not reach defendant’s alternative argument that the search violated ORS 133.575(3). See Henderson, 200 Or App at 238 *224 n 9 (noting that court did not need to and therefore did not address defendant’s argument under ORS 133.”
State v. Henderson (2005)
orctapp
“She asserts, principally, that (1) the warrant authorizing the search of her home was not supported by probable cause; and (2) in all events, the officers’ violation of ORS 133.575(3), 1 by failing to read the warrant to defendant before beginning their search, requires…”
State v. Ohling (1984)
orctapp
“The state seeks to give them a special status because of their duty, under ORS 133.575, [5] to notify the person in apparent control of the premises to be searched before executing a warrant.”
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.