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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.643 (2026)

Ground for 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

      133.643 Ground for motion for return or restoration of things seized. A motion for the return or restoration of things seized shall be based on the ground that the movant has a valid claim to rightful possession thereof, because:

      (1) The things had been stolen or otherwise converted, and the movant is the owner or rightful possessor;

      (2) The things seized were not in fact subject to seizure under ORS 131.550 to 131.600 or 133.525 to 133.703;

      (3) The movant, by license or otherwise, is lawfully entitled to possess things otherwise subject to seizure under ORS 133.525 to 133.703;

      (4) Although the things seized were subject to seizure under ORS 133.525 to 133.703, the movant is or will be entitled to their return or restoration upon the court’s determination that they are no longer needed for evidentiary purposes; or

      (5) The parties in the case have stipulated that the things seized may be returned to the movant. [1973 c.836 §111; 2001 c.104 §44; 2001 c.666 §§22,23; 2005 c.830 §20]

 

      133.650 [Repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Filipetti v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 197 P.3d 535 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Filipetti v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 197 P.3d 535 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 27× “” Plaintiffs further, and specifically, asserted that they satisfied the requirements for “return or restoration” prescribed by ORS 133.643. That statute provides, in part: “A motion for the return or restoration of things seized shall be based on the ground that the movant has…”
State v. Ehrensing, 296 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 18× “, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 USC sections 801 to 971—he does not have a “valid claim to rightful possession” under the operative evidence return statute, ORS 133.643. Accordingly, we reverse the return orders.”
Emery v. State, 688 P.2d 72 (Or. 1984). · cites it 6× “The phrase "the return or restoration of things seized" appears in each of the three sections that make up the balance of the statutory scheme (ORS 133.643, 133.653, and 133.663). The defendants concede that the term "restore" may mean to repair or to bring something back to its…”
State v. Ehrensing, 223 P.3d 1060 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “323(2) or ORS 133.643. [3] At oral argument, the state again disclosed that "the sheriff in fact did comply with that [order] by turning over eight ounces to each" of the three patients.”
State v. Harp, 697 P.2d 548 (Or. 1985). · cites it 2× “ORS 133.643 sets forth the method for return or restoration of property if, among other reasons, the “things seized were not in fact subject to seizure under ORS 133.”
State v. Thompson, 518 P.3d 923 (Or. 2022). “Although the defendants in Heckathorne, Owens, and Herbert would not have been able to have their seized contraband returned to their possession, see ORS 133.643(3) (requiring that someone seeking the return of seized things must be lawfully entitled to possess those things),…”
City of Lebanon v. Milburn, 398 P.3d 486 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” See also ORS 133.643 (providing grounds for such a motion).”
State v. Carsey, 650 P.2d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “ORS 133.643(4). A consent to search given by a person other than the subject of the search is valid only when the third party had authority to give it.”
State v. Fenton, 430 P.3d 152 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “" Related statutes explain permissible bases for such motions, ORS 133.643, and associated procedural requirements and standards governing judicial review of the motions, ORS 133.”
State v. Abdelrasul, 826 P.2d 58 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “ORS 133.643. The state filed a counter-motion to have the tapes destroyed or, in the alternative, to return the tapes to the lawful owners of the registered trademarks.”
State v. Terry, 587 P.2d 1033 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 6× “703: *336 "(1) Evidence of or information concerning the commission of a criminal offense; "(2) Contraband, the fruits of crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed; "(3) Property that has been used, or is possessed for the purpose of being used, to commit or conceal the…”
State v. Smith, 594 P.2d 860 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “The motion was made pursuant to ORS 133.643(4), the language of which makes clear that the moving party must be the person entitled to the property.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.643(1) — 1 case
Filipetti v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 197 P.3d 535 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “” Plaintiffs further, and specifically, asserted that they satisfied the requirements for “return or restoration” prescribed by ORS 133.643. That statute provides, in part: “A motion for the return or restoration of things seized shall be based on the ground that the movant has…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.643(2) — 1 case
State v. Ehrensing, 296 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 USC sections 801 to 971—he does not have a “valid claim to rightful possession” under the operative evidence return statute, ORS 133.643. Accordingly, we reverse the return orders.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.643(3) — 4 cases
State v. Thompson, 518 P.3d 923 (Or. 2022). “Although the defendants in Heckathorne, Owens, and Herbert would not have been able to have their seized contraband returned to their possession, see ORS 133.643(3) (requiring that someone seeking the return of seized things must be lawfully entitled to possess those things),…”
State v. Ehrensing, 296 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 USC sections 801 to 971—he does not have a “valid claim to rightful possession” under the operative evidence return statute, ORS 133.643. Accordingly, we reverse the return orders.”
Filipetti v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 197 P.3d 535 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “” Plaintiffs further, and specifically, asserted that they satisfied the requirements for “return or restoration” prescribed by ORS 133.643. That statute provides, in part: “A motion for the return or restoration of things seized shall be based on the ground that the movant has…”
City of Lebanon v. Milburn, 398 P.3d 486 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “” See also ORS 133.643 (providing grounds for such a motion).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.643(4) — 9 cases
Filipetti v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 197 P.3d 535 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “” Plaintiffs further, and specifically, asserted that they satisfied the requirements for “return or restoration” prescribed by ORS 133.643. That statute provides, in part: “A motion for the return or restoration of things seized shall be based on the ground that the movant has…”
State v. Ehrensing, 223 P.3d 1060 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “323(2) or ORS 133.643. [3] At oral argument, the state again disclosed that "the sheriff in fact did comply with that [order] by turning over eight ounces to each" of the three patients.”
State v. Ehrensing, 296 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 USC sections 801 to 971—he does not have a “valid claim to rightful possession” under the operative evidence return statute, ORS 133.643. Accordingly, we reverse the return orders.”
State v. Carsey, 650 P.2d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “ORS 133.643(4). A consent to search given by a person other than the subject of the search is valid only when the third party had authority to give it.”
State v. Smith, 594 P.2d 860 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “The motion was made pursuant to ORS 133.643(4), the language of which makes clear that the moving party must be the person entitled to the property.”
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.