Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.693 (2026)
Challenge to truth of evidence
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
133.693 Challenge to truth of evidence. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, in any proceeding on a motion to suppress evidence the moving party shall be entitled to contest, by cross-examination or offering evidence, the good faith, accuracy and truthfulness of the affiant with respect to the evidence presented to establish probable cause for search or seizure.
(2) If the evidence sought to be suppressed was seized by authority of a search warrant, the moving party shall be allowed to contest the good faith, accuracy and truthfulness of the affiant as to the evidence presented before the issuing authority only upon supplementary motion, supported by affidavit, setting forth substantial basis for questioning such good faith, accuracy and truthfulness.
(3) In any proceeding under subsection (2) of this section, the moving party shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence presented before the issuing authority was not offered in good faith, was not accurate and was not truthful.
(4) Where the motion to suppress challenges evidence seized as the result of a warrantless search, the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the validity of the search is on the prosecution.
(5) The court shall determine whether, under applicable law, any inaccuracy, untruthfulness or lack of good faith requires suppression. [1973 c.836 §118]
133.700 [Renumbered 135.105]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 173
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: State v. Castilleja, 168 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Castilleja, 168 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “That standard of review is inapplicable to this case except with regard to defendants' motion to controvert under ORS 133.693. Once information is excised from an *1189 affidavit under ORS 133.”
State v. Unger, 333 P.3d 1009 (Or. 2014). “” ORS 133.693(4); State v. Tucker, 330 Or 85, 87 , 997 P2d 182 (2000).”
State v. Tucker, 997 P.2d 182 (Or. 2000). “Defendant was the sole passenger in an automobile involved in a single-automobile accident.”
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). “3 (1973) (en banc); see Ore. Rev. Stat. § 133.693 (1977). Utah: State v.”
State v. Castilleja, 192 P.3d 1283 (Or. 2008). “693 unless and until that became necessary, there appears nonetheless to have been some confusion among the parties and in the Court of Appeals as to whether the trial court, in deciding that Loewen’s statements should be discounted because she lacked veracity, was directly or…”
State v. Esplin, 839 P.2d 211 (Or. 1992). “Pursuant to ORS 133.693, he also filed a pretrial motion to controvert the search warrant affidavit.”
State v. Hitt, 753 P.2d 415 (Or. 1988). “This case concerns the breadth of ORS 133.693, 1 which allows a criminal defendant to contest “the good faith, accuracy and truthfulness of the affiant” upon motion to controvert a search warrant.”
State v. Pelster/Boyer, 21 P.3d 106 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “The statute does not provide for removing information from an affidavit because it is irrelevant or legally insufficient; that remedy is available only if the information is inaccurate, untruthful, or not offered in good faith.”
State v. Ashbaugh, 200 P.3d 149 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “" ORS 133.693(4); see also State v. Tucker, 330 Or.”
State v. Keeney, 918 P.2d 419 (Or. 1996). “ORS 133.693 provides in part: “(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, in any proceeding on a motion to suppress evidence the moving party shall be entitled to contest, by cross-examination or offering evidence, the good faith, accuracy and truthfulness…”
State v. Harp, 697 P.2d 548 (Or. 1985). “Included among these statutes is ORS 133.693 governing motions to challenge affidavits.”
State v. Miller, 295 P.3d 158 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “” In his motion, defendant, relying on ORS 133.693(2), also sought to controvert the affidavit, contending that “Hatten omitted at least three pieces of material information that directly impact the sufficiency of the remaining evidence that * * * Hatten relies upon to establish…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.693(1) — 12 cases
State v. Schwartz, 21 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Castilleja, 192 P.3d 1283 (Or. 2008). “693 unless and until that became necessary, there appears nonetheless to have been some confusion among the parties and in the Court of Appeals as to whether the trial court, in deciding that Loewen’s statements should be discounted because she lacked veracity, was directly or…”
State v. Greene, 591 P.2d 1362 (Or. 1979).
State v. Ainsworth, 801 P.2d 749 (Or. 1990).
State v. Esplin, 839 P.2d 211 (Or. 1992). “Pursuant to ORS 133.693, he also filed a pretrial motion to controvert the search warrant affidavit.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.693(2) — 27 cases
State v. Miller, 295 P.3d 158 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “” In his motion, defendant, relying on ORS 133.693(2), also sought to controvert the affidavit, contending that “Hatten omitted at least three pieces of material information that directly impact the sufficiency of the remaining evidence that * * * Hatten relies upon to establish…”
State v. Bonilla, 366 P.3d 331 (Or. 2015).
State v. Hall, 999 P.2d 509 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Brown, 807 P.2d 316 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Wilson, 35 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.693(3) — 23 cases
State v. Walker, 258 P.3d 1228 (Or. 2011).
State v. Pelster/Boyer, 21 P.3d 106 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “The statute does not provide for removing information from an affidavit because it is irrelevant or legally insufficient; that remedy is available only if the information is inaccurate, untruthful, or not offered in good faith.”
State v. Castilleja, 168 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “That standard of review is inapplicable to this case except with regard to defendants' motion to controvert under ORS 133.693. Once information is excised from an *1189 affidavit under ORS 133.”
State v. Ainsworth, 801 P.2d 749 (Or. 1990).
State v. James, 123 P.3d 251 (Or. 2005).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.693(4) — 98 cases
State v. Unger, 333 P.3d 1009 (Or. 2014). “” ORS 133.693(4); State v. Tucker, 330 Or 85, 87 , 997 P2d 182 (2000).”
State v. Tucker, 997 P.2d 182 (Or. 2000). “Defendant was the sole passenger in an automobile involved in a single-automobile accident.”
State v. Ashbaugh, 200 P.3d 149 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “" ORS 133.693(4); see also State v. Tucker, 330 Or.”
State v. Groda, 591 P.2d 1354 (Or. 1979).
State v. Hemenway, 295 P.3d 617 (Or. 2013).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.693(5) — 8 cases
State v. Keeney, 918 P.2d 419 (Or. 1996). “ORS 133.693 provides in part: “(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, in any proceeding on a motion to suppress evidence the moving party shall be entitled to contest, by cross-examination or offering evidence, the good faith, accuracy and truthfulness…”
State v. Castilleja, 168 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “That standard of review is inapplicable to this case except with regard to defendants' motion to controvert under ORS 133.693. Once information is excised from an *1189 affidavit under ORS 133.”
State v. Pelster/Boyer, 21 P.3d 106 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “The statute does not provide for removing information from an affidavit because it is irrelevant or legally insufficient; that remedy is available only if the information is inaccurate, untruthful, or not offered in good faith.”
State v. Hitt, 753 P.2d 415 (Or. 1988). “This case concerns the breadth of ORS 133.693, 1 which allows a criminal defendant to contest “the good faith, accuracy and truthfulness of the affiant” upon motion to controvert a search warrant.”
State v. Diaz, 564 P.2d 1066 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
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.