133.703
Identity of informants.
(1) In any proceeding on a motion to suppress evidence wherein, pursuant to ORS
133.693, the good faith of the testimony presented to establish probable cause
is contested, and wherein such testimony includes a report of information
furnished by an informant whose identity is not disclosed in the testimony, the
moving party shall be entitled to prevail on the motion to suppress and
evidence obtained as a result of the information furnished by the informant
shall be suppressed unless:
(a) The evidence
sought to be suppressed was seized by authority of a search warrant and the
informant testified in person before the issuing authority; or
(b) The judge
determines from the affiant by a preponderance of the evidence that such
confidential informant exists and is reliable.
(2) If the
defendant is entitled to prevail on the motion to suppress under subsection (1)
of this section, the evidence obtained as a result of the information furnished
by the informant shall be suppressed. [1973 c.836 §119]
(Preservation of
Biological Evidence)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case:
State v. Russell, 650 P.2d 79 (Or. 1982).
State v. Russell, 650 P.2d 79 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 4× “The state asserts under ORS 133.703 that there is no statutory basis for suppression.”
State v. Age, 590 P.2d 759 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 3× “” 3 ORS 133.703 provides: "(1) In any proceeding on a motion to suppress evidence wherein, pursuant to ORS 133.”
State v. Carter/Grant, 848 P.2d 599 (Or. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Defendant Carter also contended that the pre-warrant penetration into the dwelling with the use of visual enhancement by 7 x 35 binoculars (which gave the officer the same view as he would have had as a trespasser, looking with the unaided eye from a distance of 20 to 25 feet…”
State v. Esplin, 839 P.2d 211 (Or. 1992).
“” In addition, ORS 133.703 requires the state to prove that the “confidential informant exists and is reliable.”
State v. Hitesman/Page, 833 P.2d 306 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“” ORS 133.703. Defendants contend that the information was not presented in good faith and was inaccurate, because many of the activities of the police on June 15 and June 19 that did not result in the discovery of any evidence were not included in the affidavit.”
State v. Mellinger, 627 P.2d 897 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“” ORS 133.703 provides: "(1) In any proceeding on a motion to suppress evidence wherein, pursuant to ORS 133.”
State v. Hitt, 753 P.2d 415 (Or. 1988).
“See ORS 133.703. After a hearing, the circuit court denied the motions.”
State v. Jessie, 521 P.2d 1323 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 2× “Thus, the testimony of the informant was not significant in establishing *1326 the guilt or innocence of the defendant when weighed against the state's interest in protecting the identity of the informant.”
State v. Lee, 373 Or. 555 (Or. 2025).
· cites it 5× “The question is not whether the legislature can provide for statutory suppression—it can, as the state itself concedes—the question is whether the legis- lature intended to provide for the possibility of statutory sup- pression under ORS 133.”
State v. Lee, 568 P.3d 139 (Or. 2025).
· cites it 5× “The question is not whether the legislature can provide for statutory suppression—it can, as the state itself concedes—the question is whether the legis- lature intended to provide for the possibility of statutory sup- pression under ORS 133.”
State v. Armstrong, 547 P.2d 170 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“in such a manner that things seized in the course of the search would be subject to suppression, and if as a result of such search or seizure other evidence is discovered subsequently and offered against a defendant, such evidence shall be subject to a motion to suppress unless…”
State v. Lee, 373 Or. 525 (Or. 2025).
· cites it 5× “The question is not whether the legislature can provide for statutory suppression—it can, as the state itself concedes—the question is whether the legis- lature intended to provide for the possibility of statutory sup- pression under ORS 133.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.703(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Carter/Grant, 848 P.2d 599 (Or. 1993).
“Defendant Carter also contended that the pre-warrant penetration into the dwelling with the use of visual enhancement by 7 x 35 binoculars (which gave the officer the same view as he would have had as a trespasser, looking with the unaided eye from a distance of 20 to 25 feet…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.703(b) — 1 case
State v. Age, 590 P.2d 759 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
“” 3 ORS 133.703 provides: "(1) In any proceeding on a motion to suppress evidence wherein, pursuant to ORS 133.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.703(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Russell, 650 P.2d 79 (Or. 1982).
“The state asserts under ORS 133.703 that there is no statutory basis for suppression.”
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.