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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.673 (2026)

Motions to suppress evidence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      133.673 Motions to suppress evidence. (1) Objections to use in evidence of things seized in violation of any of the provisions of ORS 133.525 to 133.703 shall be made by a motion to suppress which shall be heard and determined by any department of the trial court in advance of trial.

      (2) A motion to suppress which has been denied may be renewed, in the discretion of the court, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, or as the interests of justice require. [1973 c.836 §114; 1975 c.197 §1]

 

      133.680 [Renumbered 135.095]

 

      133.683 [1973 c.836 §117; repealed by 1997 c.313 §37]

 

      133.690 [Renumbered 135.100]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: State v. Castilleja, 168 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Castilleja, 168 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 26× “Challenges to the use of evidence seized under authority of a warrant is, as noted, governed by ORS 133.673 and ORS 133.693. ORS 133.673(1) provides, "Objections to use in evidence of things seized in violation of any of the provisions of ORS 133.”
State v. Lee, 373 Or. 555 (Or. 2025). · cites it 103× “Applying that reasoning, we observed that ORS 133.673 “provides that the statutory requirements for war- rants contained in ORS 133.”
State v. Lee, 568 P.3d 139 (Or. 2025). · cites it 103× “Applying that reasoning, we observed that ORS 133.673 “provides that the statutory requirements for war- rants contained in ORS 133.”
State v. Koennecke, 545 P.2d 127 (Or. 1976). · cites it 4× “" (Emphasis added) It is suggested that subsection (3) has application only to orders entered either in response to a "motion to suppress," as provided by ORS 133.673, or after an "omnibus hearing" held, in accordance with ORS 135.”
State v. Lee, 373 Or. 525 (Or. 2025). · cites it 103× “Applying that reasoning, we observed that ORS 133.673 “provides that the statutory requirements for war- rants contained in ORS 133.”
State v. Tourtillot, 618 P.2d 423 (Or. 1980). · cites it 2× “” Instead, the initial inquiry must be into the source and purpose of the authorization for the investigatory action, the standards prescribed to confine discretion in administering this authority, the level of official accountability at which discretion is exercised, and the…”
State v. Lee, 532 P.3d 894 (Or. 2023). · cites it 3× “ORS 133.673 explicitly provides that the statutory requirements for warrants contained in ORS 133.”
State v. Cole, 912 P.2d 907 (Or. 1996). · cites it 2× “The state relies on ORS 133.673, 4 for the proposition that defendant could, during trial on the merits, have renewed his motion to suppress evidence and that his failure to do so means that the error is unpreserved.”
State v. Harp, 697 P.2d 548 (Or. 1985). · cites it 2× “In Oregon these questions are not answered initially with reference to federal or state constitutional jurisprudence. Pretrail motions to suppress evidence claimed to have been seized unlawfully, either pursuant to or in the absence of warrants, are regulated by statute.”
State v. Carter/Grant, 848 P.2d 599 (Or. 1993). · cites it 2× “The motion to suppress under ORS 133.673 should have been granted. The evidence seized must be suppressed.”
State v. Andrew William Betnar, 166 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Defendant relies on ORS 133.673, which provides: “(1) Objections to use in evidence of things seized in violation of any of the provisions of ORS 133.”
State v. Tourtillott, 618 P.2d 423 (Or. 1980). “[6] ORS 133.673 provides that objections to the evidentiary use of illegally seized "things" shall be made by motion to suppress in advance of trial.”
Show all 43 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.673(1) — 16 cases
State v. Castilleja, 168 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “Challenges to the use of evidence seized under authority of a warrant is, as noted, governed by ORS 133.673 and ORS 133.693. ORS 133.673(1) provides, "Objections to use in evidence of things seized in violation of any of the provisions of ORS 133.”
State v. Lee, 532 P.3d 894 (Or. 2023). “ORS 133.673 explicitly provides that the statutory requirements for warrants contained in ORS 133.”
State v. Russell, 650 P.2d 79 (Or. 1982).
State v. Edgmand, 761 P.2d 505 (Or. 1988).
State v. Morrison/Bartee, 812 P.2d 832 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.673(2) — 9 cases
State v. Andrew William Betnar, 166 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “Defendant relies on ORS 133.673, which provides: “(1) Objections to use in evidence of things seized in violation of any of the provisions of ORS 133.”
State v. Anderson, 599 P.2d 1225 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
State v. Farkes, 691 P.2d 489 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
State v. Custer, 934 P.2d 455 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Statham, 662 P.2d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
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.