133.736
Suppression of intercepted oral communication; procedure; 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 recordings of any oral communication
intercepted in violation of ORS 133.726 or testimony or other evidence derived
solely from the unlawful interception.
(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 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. [1983
c.824 §5; 2001 c.385 §3; 2003 c.14 §55]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1986–2012 · leading case:
State v. Klein, 283 P.3d 350 (Or. 2012).
State v. Klein, 283 P.3d 350 (Or. 2012).
· cites it 7× “721(1) (defining “aggrieved person”) and ORS 133.736 (allowing an “aggrieved person” to seek suppression of evidence gained through a body-wire order).”
State v. Rodriguez, 840 P.2d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 6× “ORS 133.736 establishes the procedure for challenging the introduction of conversations obtained under ORS 165.”
State v. Miskell, 277 P.3d 522 (Or. 2012).
· cites it 3× “724; “(2) For purposes of this section and ORS 133.736, a person is a party to an oral communication if the oral communication is made in the person’s immediate presence and is audible to the person regardless of whether the communication is specifically directed to the person;…”
State v. Fleetwood, 16 P.3d 503 (Or. 2000).
· cites it 2× “” ORS 133.736 provides, in part: “(1) Any aggrieved person, as defined in ORS 133.”
State v. Hale, 288 P.3d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “735(1) (“[a]ny 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.”
City of Lake Oswego v. Mylander, 721 P.2d 433 (Or. 1986).
“The circuit court order recites in part: “The matter heard was a Motion to Suppress (pursuant to ORS 133.736), originally filed by defendant in the City of Lake Oswego Municipal Court * * *.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.736(1) — 3 cases
State v. Klein, 283 P.3d 350 (Or. 2012).
“721(1) (defining “aggrieved person”) and ORS 133.736 (allowing an “aggrieved person” to seek suppression of evidence gained through a body-wire order).”
State v. Miskell, 277 P.3d 522 (Or. 2012).
“724; “(2) For purposes of this section and ORS 133.736, a person is a party to an oral communication if the oral communication is made in the person’s immediate presence and is audible to the person regardless of whether the communication is specifically directed to the person;…”
State v. Hale, 288 P.3d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“735(1) (“[a]ny 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.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.736(2) — 1 case
State v. Rodriguez, 840 P.2d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“ORS 133.736 establishes the procedure for challenging the introduction of conversations obtained under ORS 165.”
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.