133.735
Suppression of intercepted communications; procedure; grounds; appeal. (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 suppress the contents of any wire, electronic
or oral communication intercepted under ORS 133.724, or evidence derived
therefrom, on the grounds that:
(a) The
communication was unlawfully intercepted;
(b) The order of
authorization or approval under which it was intercepted is insufficient on its
face; or
(c) The
interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization or
approval.
(2) Such motion
shall be made before the trial, hearing or proceeding unless there was no
opportunity to make such motion or the person was not aware of the grounds of
the motion. If the motion is granted, the contents of the intercepted wire,
electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, shall be
treated as having been unlawfully obtained. The judge, upon the filing of such
motion by the aggrieved person, may in the judge’s discretion make available to
the aggrieved person or the person’s counsel for inspection such portions of
the intercepted communications or evidence derived therefrom as the judge
determines to be in the interests of justice.
(3) In addition
to any other right to appeal, the state shall have the right to appeal from an
order granting a motion to suppress under subsection (1) of this section. [1979
c.716 §10; 1989 c.983 §11]
Notes of Decisions
State v. Pottle (1984)
or · cites it 10×
“" ORS 133.735 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…”
State v. Jones (2005)
or · cites it 6×
“First, defendant argues that ORS 133.735 requires suppression of the officers’ testimony.”
State v. Fleetwood (2000)
or · cites it 5×
“The court concluded that, because “the order authorizing this wiretap did not conform to the statutory requirements, these conversations were intercepted unlawfully, and the conversations and all evidence derived therefrom must be suppressed.”
State v. Klein (2012)
or · cites it 2×
“) Similarly, ORS 133.735 provides, in part: “(1) Any aggrieved person in any trial *** may move to suppress the contents of any wire, electronic or oral *308 communication intercepted under ORS 133.”
State v. Stockfleth (1991)
or · cites it 5×
“Congress significantly revised the federal wiretap laws in 1968, by Title III of the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2520 .”
State v. McGinnis (2003)
or · cites it 2×
“432, which limits the ability of courts to suppress evidence obtained in violation of a statute.”
State v. Klein (2011)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“As explained below, we agree with the state that, with respect to the second body-wire order, defendant was not an “aggrieved person” as that term is used in ORS 133.735. 2 Consequently, we do not reach defendant’s arguments on the merits of the trial court’s denial of his…”
State v. Trenary (1992)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“" The first issue is whether Foust's violation of ORS 813.135 requires suppression of the test results.”
State v. Underwood (1982)
or · cites it 3×
“The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial after finding that the recording was not “interception” subject to suppression under ORS 133.735. 53 Or App 771 , 633 P2d 803 (1981).”
State v. Trenary (1993)
or
“, ORS 133.735 (unlawfully intercepted communications may be excluded upon a motion to suppress); ORS 136.”
State v. Tucker (1983)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“Aside from the fact that the federal courts have recognized total suppression as an appropriate remedy under the circumstances presented here, ORS 133.735 2 expressly authorizes that remedy when the order authorizing the wiretap is insufficient on its face, or the interception…”
State v. Wischnofske (1994)
orctapp
“ORS 133.735 provides that an “aggrieved person” may move to suppress “the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication intercepted under ORS 133.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.735(1) — 10 cases
State v. Klein (2012)
or
“) Similarly, ORS 133.735 provides, in part: “(1) Any aggrieved person in any trial *** may move to suppress the contents of any wire, electronic or oral *308 communication intercepted under ORS 133.”
State v. Fleetwood (2000)
or
“The court concluded that, because “the order authorizing this wiretap did not conform to the statutory requirements, these conversations were intercepted unlawfully, and the conversations and all evidence derived therefrom must be suppressed.”
State v. Pottle (1984)
or
“" ORS 133.735 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…”
State v. Stockfleth (1991)
or
“Congress significantly revised the federal wiretap laws in 1968, by Title III of the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2520 .”
State v. Jones (2005)
or
“First, defendant argues that ORS 133.735 requires suppression of the officers’ testimony.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.735(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Jones (2005)
or
“First, defendant argues that ORS 133.735 requires suppression of the officers’ testimony.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.735(3) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.735(l)(a) — 1 case
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.