133.663
Disputed possession rights.
(1) If, upon consideration of a motion for return or restoration of things
seized, it appears to the court that the things should be returned or restored,
but there is a substantial question whether they should be returned to the
person from whose possession they were seized or to some other person, or a
substantial question among several claimants to rightful possession, the court
may:
(a) Return the
things to the person from whose possession they were seized; or
(b)(A) Impound
the things seized and set a further hearing, ensuring that all persons with a
possible possessory interest in the things in question receive due notice and
an opportunity to be heard; and
(B) Upon
completion of the hearing provided for in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph,
enter an order for the return or restoration of the things seized.
(2) If there is
no substantial question whether the things should be returned to the person
from whose possession they were seized, they must be returned to the person
upon the release of the defendant from custody.
(3) Instead of
conducting the hearing provided for in subsection (1)(b)(A) of this section and
returning or restoring the property, the court, in its discretion, may leave
the several claimants to appropriate civil process for the determination of the
claims. [1973 c.836 §113; 2005 c.22 §103]
133.665 [Repealed by 1961 c.289 §3]
133.670 [Renumbered 135.090]
(Evidentiary Exclusion)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case:
State v. Atkinson, 688 P.2d 832 (Or. 1984).
State v. Atkinson, 688 P.2d 832 (Or. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Similarly, under ORS 133.663, if the possessory rights in items seized are disputed, *837 the court may "impound" the items seized, give notice and hold a hearing to determine their ownership.”
Emery v. State, 688 P.2d 72 (Or. 1984).
· cites it 2× “623 through ORS 133.663. [9] Reversed and remanded to the trial court for entry of summary judgment for the defendants.”
State v. Boone, 959 P.2d 76 (Or. 1998).
“] “Similarly, under ORS 133.663, if the possessory rights in items seized are disputed, the court may ‘impound’ the items seized, give notice and hold a hearing to determine their ownership.”
State v. Fenton, 430 P.3d 152 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “Thus, by denying defendant's motion for return of the firearms, the trial court ruled that defendant had not established a right to current possession of the firearms. The question remains whether the August 14 order should be understood to also memorialize the trial court's…”
Newman v. Stuart, 597 So. 2d 609 (Miss. 1992).
“22 § 1232 (1986); Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.663 (1990); Tenn. Code Ann.”
State v. Miller, 325 P.3d 787 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“See ORS 133.663(3) (permitting a court to “leave the several claimants to appropriate civil process for the determination of the claims”).”
State v. Wilson, 803 P.2d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “623 through ORS 133.663 and defendant could have availed himself of that process.”
State v. Forker, 523 P.3d 670 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” If there is a dispute over a motion for return of seized items, it is resolved by the court under ORS 133.663, which provides: “(1) If, upon consideration of a motion for return or restoration of things seized, it appears to the court that the things should be returned or…”
State v. Richey, 634 P.2d 487 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“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.”
State v. Jourdain, 938 P.2d 244 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “ORS 133.663 requires trial courts to conduct hearings before granting motions to return property if there is a substantial question about who should receive the property.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.663(1)(b)(B) — 1 case
State v. Fenton, 430 P.3d 152 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“Thus, by denying defendant's motion for return of the firearms, the trial court ruled that defendant had not established a right to current possession of the firearms. The question remains whether the August 14 order should be understood to also memorialize the trial court's…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.663(3) — 2 cases
State v. Miller, 325 P.3d 787 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“See ORS 133.663(3) (permitting a court to “leave the several claimants to appropriate civil process for the determination of the claims”).”
State v. Jourdain, 938 P.2d 244 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“ORS 133.663 requires trial courts to conduct hearings before granting motions to return property if there is a substantial question about who should receive 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.