133.724 Order
for interception of communications; application; grounds for issuance; contents
of order; progress reports.
(1) An ex parte order for the interception of wire, electronic or oral
communications may be issued by any circuit court judge upon written
application made upon oath or affirmation of the individual who is the district
attorney or a deputy district attorney authorized by the district attorney for
the county in which the order is sought. The application shall include:
(a) The name of
the district attorney or the deputy district attorney making the application
and the authority of the district attorney or the deputy district attorney to
make the application;
(b) The identity
of the investigative or law enforcement officer making the application and the
officer authorizing the application;
(c) A statement
demonstrating that there is probable cause to believe that an individual is
committing, has committed or is about to commit:
(A) A particular
felony of murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion or other crime
dangerous to life and punishable as a felony;
(B) A crime
punishable as a felony under ORS 163.266 (1)(b) or (c), 163.413, 166.720,
167.012, 167.017, 475.752, 475.786 to 475.894 or 475.904 to 475.910 or as a
misdemeanor under ORS 167.007 or 167.008; or
(C) Any
conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes;
(d) A statement
of the details, if known, of the particular crime alleged under paragraph (c)
of this subsection;
(e) A particular
description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the
place where the wire, electronic or oral communication is to be intercepted, if
known;
(f) A particular
description of the type of wire, electronic or oral communication sought to be
intercepted;
(g) The identity
of the person, if known, suspected of committing the crime and whose wire,
electronic or oral communications are to be intercepted;
(h) A full and
complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have
been tried and failed or why other investigative procedures reasonably appear
to be unlikely to succeed if tried or are likely to be too dangerous;
(i) A statement
of the period of time for which the interception is required to be maintained.
If the nature of the investigation is such that the authorization for
interception should not automatically terminate when the described type of
wire, electronic or oral communication has been first obtained, a description
of facts establishing probable cause to believe that additional communications
of the same type will occur thereafter;
(j) A statement
as to whether any prior application has been made to intercept wire, electronic
or oral communications from the same person and, if such prior application
exists, a statement of the current status of that application; and
(k) Where the
application is for the extension of an existing order, a statement setting
forth the results thus far obtained from the interception, or a reasonable
explanation of the failure to obtain such results.
(2) The judge may
require the applicant to furnish further testimony or documentary evidence in
support of the application.
(3) Upon
examination of such application and evidence the judge may enter an ex parte
order, as requested or as modified, authorizing or approving interception of
wire, electronic or oral communications within the state if the judge
determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that:
(a) There is
probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed or is
about to commit a particular crime described in subsection (1)(c) of this
section;
(b) There is
probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that crime
will be obtained through such interception;
(c) Normal
investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear
to be unlikely to succeed if tried or are likely to be too dangerous; and
(d) There is
probable cause for belief that the facilities from which, or the place where,
the wire, electronic or oral communications to be intercepted are being used,
or are about to be used, in connection with the planning or the commission of
that crime are open to the public or are owned by, leased to, listed in the
name of, or commonly used by the individual suspected.
(4) Each order
authorizing or approving the interception of any wire, electronic or oral
communication shall specify:
(a) The identity
of the person, if known, whose communications are to be intercepted;
(b) The nature
and location of the communications facilities as to which, or the place where,
authority to intercept is granted;
(c) A particular
description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted, and a
statement of the particular crime to which it relates;
(d) The identity
of the agency authorized to intercept the communications and of the person
authorizing the application;
(e) The period of
time during which such interception is authorized, including a statement as to
whether or not the interception shall automatically terminate when the
described communication has been first obtained; and
(f) The name of
the applicant, date of issuance, and the signature and title of the issuing
judge.
(5) An order
entered pursuant to this section may not authorize or approve the interception
of any wire, electronic or oral communication for any period longer than is
necessary to achieve the objective of authorization and in no event for longer
than 30 days. Extensions of any order may be granted, but only when application
for an extension is made in accordance with subsection (1)(k) of this section
and the court makes the findings required by subsection (3) of this section.
The period of extension shall be no longer than the authorizing judge deems
necessary to achieve the purpose for which it is granted and in no event for
longer than 30 days. Every order and extension of that order shall contain a
provision that the authorization to intercept must be executed as soon as
practicable, must be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of
communications not otherwise subject to interception, and must terminate upon
attainment of the authorized objective, or in any event in 30 days.
(6) Whenever an
order authorizing interception is entered pursuant to this section, the order
may require reports to be made to the judge who issued the order showing what
progress has been made toward achievement of the authorized objective and the
need for continued interception. Such reports shall be made at such intervals
as the judge may require. [1979 c.716 §4 (enacted in lieu of 133.725); 1989
c.639 §1; 1989 c.983 §7a; 1995 c.224 §1; 2001 c.385 §6; 2005 c.708 §45; 2007
c.442 §1; 2011 c.151 §8; 2013 c.720 §6]
133.725 [Formerly 141.720; repealed by
1979 c.716 §3 (133.724 enacted in lieu of 133.725)]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
49
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case:
State v. Pottle, 677 P.2d 1 (Or. 1984).
State v. Pottle, 677 P.2d 1 (Or. 1984).
· cites it 70× “735 provides for the suppression of intercepted communications: "(1) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to…”
State v. Fleetwood, 16 P.3d 503 (Or. 2000).
· cites it 28× “The first statute is ORS 133.724, which provides, in part: “(1) An ex parte order for the interception of wire, electronic or oral communications may be issued by any circuit court judge upon written application made upon oath or affirmation of the individual who is the district…”
State v. Stockfleth, 804 P.2d 471 (Or. 1991).
· cites it 23× “3 ORS 133.724. 4 The trial court suppressed the conversations obtained from the wiretaps.”
State v. Klein, 283 P.3d 350 (Or. 2012).
· cites it 7× “Based in part on those conversations, the police obtained a wiretap order under ORS 133.724, which authorized the interception of communications made by defendant on his mobile phone.”
State v. Miskell, 277 P.3d 522 (Or. 2012).
· cites it 11× “540, which the statute expressly recognizes in the introductory phrase: “Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 and ORS 133.726 or subsection (2) to (7) of this section * * The two exceptions that are relevant in this case, ORS 133.”
State v. Lissy, 747 P.2d 345 (Or. 1987).
· cites it 11× “The obtaining of wire communications must be through orders that confirm [sic] to ORS 133.724. As this was not done in the present case, the telephone conversations should be suppressed.”
State v. Tucker, 662 P.2d 345 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 8× “540 prohibits wiretapping, “except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 * * and prohibits the use or attempted use of any conversation obtained by means prohibited by that section.”
State v. Delaurent, 514 P.3d 113 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “ORS 133.724 also sheds some light on the issue before us.”
State v. Oslund, 693 P.2d 1354 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 7× “Pursuant to ORS 133.724, on February 2, 1983, the district attorney filed an application for an ex parte order for the interception of an oral communication.”
State v. Jury, 57 P.3d 970 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that ORS 133.724 required the police to obtain court orders before using body wires to intercept communications.”
State v. Neff, 265 P.3d 62 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “540(1)(c) provides, in part: "(1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (7) of this section, a person may not: "* * * * * "(c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine…”
State v. Jones, 121 P.3d 657 (Or. 2005).
· cites it 3× “That statute provides, in part: “(1) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing or proceeding in or before any court * * * may move to suppress the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication intercepted under ORS 133.724, or evidence derived therefrom, on the grounds…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(1) — 8 cases
State v. Pottle, 677 P.2d 1 (Or. 1984).
“735 provides for the suppression of intercepted communications: "(1) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to…”
State v. Fleetwood, 16 P.3d 503 (Or. 2000).
“The first statute is ORS 133.724, which provides, in part: “(1) An ex parte order for the interception of wire, electronic or oral communications may be issued by any circuit court judge upon written application made upon oath or affirmation of the individual who is the district…”
State v. Miskell, 277 P.3d 522 (Or. 2012).
“540, which the statute expressly recognizes in the introductory phrase: “Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 and ORS 133.726 or subsection (2) to (7) of this section * * The two exceptions that are relevant in this case, ORS 133.”
State v. Tucker, 662 P.2d 345 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“540 prohibits wiretapping, “except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 * * and prohibits the use or attempted use of any conversation obtained by means prohibited by that section.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(1)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Delaurent, 514 P.3d 113 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“ORS 133.724 also sheds some light on the issue before us.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Delaurent, 514 P.3d 113 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“ORS 133.724 also sheds some light on the issue before us.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(1)(g) — 1 case
State v. Pottle, 677 P.2d 1 (Or. 1984).
“735 provides for the suppression of intercepted communications: "(1) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(1)(h) — 2 cases
State v. Stockfleth, 804 P.2d 471 (Or. 1991).
“3 ORS 133.724. 4 The trial court suppressed the conversations obtained from the wiretaps.”
State v. Oslund, 693 P.2d 1354 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“Pursuant to ORS 133.724, on February 2, 1983, the district attorney filed an application for an ex parte order for the interception of an oral communication.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(1)(k) — 1 case
State v. Stockfleth, 804 P.2d 471 (Or. 1991).
“3 ORS 133.724. 4 The trial court suppressed the conversations obtained from the wiretaps.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(3) — 1 case
State v. Pottle, 677 P.2d 1 (Or. 1984).
“735 provides for the suppression of intercepted communications: "(1) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(3)(b) — 1 case
State v. Stockfleth, 804 P.2d 471 (Or. 1991).
“3 ORS 133.724. 4 The trial court suppressed the conversations obtained from the wiretaps.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(3)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Stockfleth, 804 P.2d 471 (Or. 1991).
“3 ORS 133.724. 4 The trial court suppressed the conversations obtained from the wiretaps.”
State v. Oslund, 693 P.2d 1354 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“Pursuant to ORS 133.724, on February 2, 1983, the district attorney filed an application for an ex parte order for the interception of an oral communication.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(4) — 3 cases
State v. Pottle, 677 P.2d 1 (Or. 1984).
“735 provides for the suppression of intercepted communications: "(1) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to…”
State v. Tucker, 662 P.2d 345 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“540 prohibits wiretapping, “except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 * * and prohibits the use or attempted use of any conversation obtained by means prohibited by that section.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(4)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Pottle, 677 P.2d 1 (Or. 1984).
“735 provides for the suppression of intercepted communications: "(1) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to…”
State v. Klein, 283 P.3d 350 (Or. 2012).
“Based in part on those conversations, the police obtained a wiretap order under ORS 133.724, which authorized the interception of communications made by defendant on his mobile phone.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(4)(e) — 2 cases
State v. Pottle, 677 P.2d 1 (Or. 1984).
“735 provides for the suppression of intercepted communications: "(1) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(5) — 5 cases
State v. Pottle, 677 P.2d 1 (Or. 1984).
“735 provides for the suppression of intercepted communications: "(1) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to…”
State v. Stockfleth, 804 P.2d 471 (Or. 1991).
“3 ORS 133.724. 4 The trial court suppressed the conversations obtained from the wiretaps.”
State v. Tucker, 662 P.2d 345 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“540 prohibits wiretapping, “except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 * * and prohibits the use or attempted use of any conversation obtained by means prohibited by that section.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(6) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Fleetwood, 16 P.3d 503 (Or. 2000).
“The first statute is ORS 133.724, which provides, in part: “(1) An ex parte order for the interception of wire, electronic or oral communications may be issued by any circuit court judge upon written application made upon oath or affirmation of the individual who is the district…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(l)(h) — 2 cases
State v. Stockfleth, 804 P.2d 471 (Or. 1991).
“3 ORS 133.724. 4 The trial court suppressed the conversations obtained from the wiretaps.”
State v. Oslund, 693 P.2d 1354 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“Pursuant to ORS 133.724, on February 2, 1983, the district attorney filed an application for an ex parte order for the interception of an oral communication.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.724(l)(k) — 1 case
State v. Stockfleth, 804 P.2d 471 (Or. 1991).
“3 ORS 133.724. 4 The trial court suppressed the conversations obtained from the wiretaps.”
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.