Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.633 (2026)
Motion for return or restoration of things seized
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
133.633 Motion for return or restoration of things seized. (1) Within 90 days after actual notice of any seizure, or at such later date as the court in its discretion may allow:
(a) An individual from whose person, property or premises things have been seized may move the appropriate court to return things seized to the person or premises from which they were seized.
(b) Any other person asserting a claim to rightful possession of the things seized may move the appropriate court to restore the things seized to the movant.
(2) The appropriate court to consider such motion is:
(a) The court having ultimate trial jurisdiction over any crime charged in connection with the seizure;
(b) If no crime is charged in connection with the seizure, the court to which the warrant was returned; or
(c) If the seizure was not made under a warrant and no crime is charged in connection with the seizure, any court having authority to issue search warrants in the county in which the seizure was made.
(3) The movant shall serve a copy of the motion upon the district attorney or the city attorney, whichever is appropriate, of the jurisdiction in which the property is in custody.
(4) No filing, appearance or hearing fees may be charged for filing or hearing a motion under this section.
(5)(a) The things seized that are the subject of a motion for return under this section may include raw data obtained from the forensic imaging of a portable electronic device or of a computer.
(b) As used in this subsection, “forensic imaging,” “portable electronic device” and “raw data” have the meanings given those terms in ORS 133.539. [1973 c.836 §110; 1999 c.37 §1; 2005 c.22 §102; 2015 c.613 §2]
133.635 [1961 c.696 §3; 1967 c.628 §2; renumbered 135.080]
133.640 [Repealed by 1965 c.508 §8]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Emery v. State, 688 P.2d 72 (Or. 1984).
Emery v. State, 688 P.2d 72 (Or. 1984). “The Plaintiffs' Statutory Claim ORS 133.633 in part provides: "(1) Within 90 days after actual notice of any seizure, * * *: "(a) An individual from whose person, property or premises things have been seized may move the appropriate court to return things seized to the person or…”
State v. Fenton, 430 P.3d 152 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “We turn to the second preliminary question before us: What is the scope of the trial court's August 14 order? On its face, that order accomplishes one thing: It denies defendant's motion for return of the seized firearms.”
Filipetti v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 197 P.3d 535 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “After the doe had been seized from plaintiffs’ property pursuant to a search warrant, plaintiffs sought to recover the doe by filing a motion under ORS 133.633 for “return or restoration of things seized.”
Bord v. Baltimore Cnty., 104 A.3d 948 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014). “” That court examined a similar statute, Or.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 133.633 (West 2014), which provides: (1) Within 90 days after actual notice of any seizure, * * *: (a) An individual from whose person, property or premises things have been seized may move the appropriate court to…”
City of Lebanon v. Milburn, 398 P.3d 486 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Relying on ORS 133.633, defendant argued, among other things, that the city was required to return her dog because Sam was property that was no longer needed for eviden-tiary purposes and because defendant was lawfully entitled to possess him.”
State v. Glascock, 576 P.2d 377 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “"In view of the foregoing facts, the defendant does not present any basis for the Court to exercise its discretion in extending the 90-day statutory time period under ORS 133.633. Under these circumstances, the statutory period of time ought to be strictly observed.”
Sollars v. City of Milwaukie, 193 P.3d 75 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “Plaintiff filed, pursuant to ORS 133.633(1), a motion for the return of things seized, 1 asserting that she was *387 the rightful owner of the money found in her house.”
State v. Ehrensing, 296 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “” The sheriff opposed defendant’s motion, contending that “any order directing him to deliver marijuana to the defendant or to any [OMMA] cardholder would violate the [CSA] and would put him in a Hobson’s Choice (or a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ bind), whereby he…”
State v. Miller, 325 P.3d 787 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “In 2010, defendant filed a motion for return of the gold from the City of Medford and the state under ORS 133.633(l)(a) in a separately filed case.”
State v. Mauro, 757 P.2d 454 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “ORS 133.633. On October 21,1985, the court ordered that the motion be disposed of at a subsequent omnibus hearing, ORS 135.”
State v. Forker, 523 P.3d 670 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “” ORS 133.633 sets out a procedure for a motion for return or restoration of seized things, allowing “[a]n indi- vidual from whose person, property or premises things have been seized” to “move the appropriate court to return things seized to the person or premises from which…”
Mercer v. State, 664 P.2d 429 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “” ORS 133.633. 1 We reverse and remand. The items that the trial court ordered returned to petitioner included 11 marijuana plants, cultivation equipment, assorted “pot” paraphernalia (pipes, roach clips and the like) and related objects.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.633(1) — 4 cases
Emery v. State, 688 P.2d 72 (Or. 1984). “The Plaintiffs' Statutory Claim ORS 133.633 in part provides: "(1) Within 90 days after actual notice of any seizure, * * *: "(a) An individual from whose person, property or premises things have been seized may move the appropriate court to return things seized to the person or…”
Sollars v. City of Milwaukie, 193 P.3d 75 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “Plaintiff filed, pursuant to ORS 133.633(1), a motion for the return of things seized, 1 asserting that she was *387 the rightful owner of the money found in her house.”
State v. Ehrensing, 296 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “” The sheriff opposed defendant’s motion, contending that “any order directing him to deliver marijuana to the defendant or to any [OMMA] cardholder would violate the [CSA] and would put him in a Hobson’s Choice (or a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ bind), whereby he…”
State v. Glascock, 576 P.2d 377 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “"In view of the foregoing facts, the defendant does not present any basis for the Court to exercise its discretion in extending the 90-day statutory time period under ORS 133.633. Under these circumstances, the statutory period of time ought to be strictly observed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.633(1)(a) — 4 cases
Emery v. State, 688 P.2d 72 (Or. 1984). “The Plaintiffs' Statutory Claim ORS 133.633 in part provides: "(1) Within 90 days after actual notice of any seizure, * * *: "(a) An individual from whose person, property or premises things have been seized may move the appropriate court to return things seized to the person or…”
State v. Fenton, 430 P.3d 152 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “We turn to the second preliminary question before us: What is the scope of the trial court's August 14 order? On its face, that order accomplishes one thing: It denies defendant's motion for return of the seized firearms.”
State v. Glascock, 576 P.2d 377 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “"In view of the foregoing facts, the defendant does not present any basis for the Court to exercise its discretion in extending the 90-day statutory time period under ORS 133.633. Under these circumstances, the statutory period of time ought to be strictly observed.”
State v. Forker, 523 P.3d 670 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “” ORS 133.633 sets out a procedure for a motion for return or restoration of seized things, allowing “[a]n indi- vidual from whose person, property or premises things have been seized” to “move the appropriate court to return things seized to the person or premises from which…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.633(1)(b) — 1 case
Emery v. State, 688 P.2d 72 (Or. 1984). “The Plaintiffs' Statutory Claim ORS 133.633 in part provides: "(1) Within 90 days after actual notice of any seizure, * * *: "(a) An individual from whose person, property or premises things have been seized may move the appropriate court to return things seized to the person or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.633(2) — 1 case
State v. Fenton, 430 P.3d 152 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “We turn to the second preliminary question before us: What is the scope of the trial court's August 14 order? On its face, that order accomplishes one thing: It denies defendant's motion for return of the seized firearms.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.633(5)(a) — 1 case
State v. Forker, 523 P.3d 670 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “” ORS 133.633 sets out a procedure for a motion for return or restoration of seized things, allowing “[a]n indi- vidual from whose person, property or premises things have been seized” to “move the appropriate court to return things seized to the person or premises from which…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.633(l)(a) — 2 cases
Emery v. State, 688 P.2d 72 (Or. 1984). “The Plaintiffs' Statutory Claim ORS 133.633 in part provides: "(1) Within 90 days after actual notice of any seizure, * * *: "(a) An individual from whose person, property or premises things have been seized may move the appropriate court to return things seized to the person or…”
State v. Miller, 325 P.3d 787 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “In 2010, defendant filed a motion for return of the gold from the City of Medford and the state under ORS 133.633(l)(a) in a separately filed case.”
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.