133.653
Postponement of return or restoration; appellate review; contents of order. (1) In granting a motion for
return or restoration of things seized, the court shall postpone execution of
the order until such time as the things in question need no longer remain
available for evidentiary use.
(2) An order
granting a motion for return or restoration of things seized shall be
reviewable on appeal in regular course. An order denying such a motion or
entered under ORS 133.663 shall be reviewable on appeal upon certification by
the court having custody of the things in question that they are no longer
needed for evidentiary purposes.
(3)(a) An order
granting a motion for return of raw data obtained from the forensic imaging of
a portable electronic device or of a computer shall include a provision that a
law enforcement agency may not retain a copy of the raw data to be returned.
(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 §112; 2015
c.613 §3]
133.660 [Amended by 1961 c.289 §1; 1965
c.508 §5; 1973 c.836 §139; renumbered 135.085]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case:
State v. Fenton, 430 P.3d 152 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Fenton, 430 P.3d 152 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 8× “643, and associated procedural requirements and standards governing judicial review of the motions, ORS 133.653 ; ORS 133.663. The state also makes a lack-of-preservation argument that we reject without discussion.”
State v. Harp, 697 P.2d 548 (Or. 1985).
“” ORS 133.653 was added in 1973 as well. Subsection (1) provides: “(1) In granting a motion for return or restoration of things seized, the court shall postpone execution of the order until such time as the things in question need no longer remain available for evidentiary use.”
Emery v. State, 688 P.2d 72 (Or. 1984).
“" ORS 133.653. The statutes leave no doubt that the State of Oregon intends to respect the property interests of persons whose property it needs for evidentiary use.”
City of Lebanon v. Milburn, 398 P.3d 486 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“See ORS 133.653(2) (providing for appeal of an order to return things seized).”
Moodenbaugh v. OSP, 343 Or. App. 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 133.653(2) (“An order granting a motion for return or resto- ration of things seized shall be reviewable on appeal in reg- ular course.”
State v. Forker, 523 P.3d 670 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “” A related statute, ORS 133.653, puts an express limitation on the ability of law enforcement agencies to keep and hold the raw data that has been obtained from computers and portable electronic devices: “An order grant- ing a motion for return of raw data obtained from the…”
Moodenbaugh v. OSP, 343 Or. App. 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 133.653(2) (“An order granting a motion for return or resto- ration of things seized shall be reviewable on appeal in reg- ular course.”
State v. Shaw, 556 P.2d 717 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 4× “” ORS 133.653(2). We have examined the record and can find no certification as required by ORS 133.”
State v. Richey, 634 P.2d 487 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Contrary to the state’s position, this case could be appealable under ORS 133.653(2), which states: "An order granting a motion for return or restoration of things seized shall be reviewable on appeal in regular course.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.653(1) — 1 case
State v. Forker, 523 P.3d 670 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“” A related statute, ORS 133.653, puts an express limitation on the ability of law enforcement agencies to keep and hold the raw data that has been obtained from computers and portable electronic devices: “An order grant- ing a motion for return of raw data obtained from the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.653(2) — 6 cases
State v. Fenton, 430 P.3d 152 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“643, and associated procedural requirements and standards governing judicial review of the motions, ORS 133.653 ; ORS 133.663. The state also makes a lack-of-preservation argument that we reject without discussion.”
City of Lebanon v. Milburn, 398 P.3d 486 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“See ORS 133.653(2) (providing for appeal of an order to return things seized).”
Moodenbaugh v. OSP, 343 Or. App. 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“See ORS 133.653(2) (“An order granting a motion for return or resto- ration of things seized shall be reviewable on appeal in reg- ular course.”
Moodenbaugh v. OSP, 343 Or. App. 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“See ORS 133.653(2) (“An order granting a motion for return or resto- ration of things seized shall be reviewable on appeal in reg- ular course.”
State v. Shaw, 556 P.2d 717 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“” ORS 133.653(2). We have examined the record and can find no certification as required by ORS 133.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.653(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Forker, 523 P.3d 670 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“” A related statute, ORS 133.653, puts an express limitation on the ability of law enforcement agencies to keep and hold the raw data that has been obtained from computers and portable electronic devices: “An order grant- ing a motion for return of raw data obtained from the…”
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.