Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.787 (2026)

Rights of arrested person

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      133.787 Rights of arrested person. No person arrested upon such warrant shall be delivered over to the agent whom the executive authority demanding the person shall have appointed to receive the person unless the person has been informed of the demand made for surrender and of the crime with which the person is charged, and that the person has the right to demand legal counsel; and if the prisoner, the friends, or counsel of the prisoner shall state the desire to test the legality of the arrest, the prisoner shall be taken forthwith before a judge of a court of record in this state, who shall fix a reasonable time to be allowed the prisoner within which to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. And when such writ is applied for, notice thereof, and of the time and place of hearing thereon, shall be given to the public prosecuting officer of the county in which the arrest is made and in which the accused is in custody, and to the said agent of the demanding state. [Formerly 147.100]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1978–2006 · leading case: Jenkins v. Chief Just. of the Dist. Court Dept., 619 N.E.2d 324 (Mass. 1993).
Jenkins v. Chief Just. of the Dist. Court Dept., 619 N.E.2d 324 (Mass. 1993). “22, § 181 (1991); Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.787 (1991); Pa. R. Crim.”
Application of Carden, 635 P.2d 341 (Or. 1981). · cites it 2× “ORS 133.787. The circuit judge announced that the judges of that judicial district had agreed as a matter of new policy that all defendants “would be in custody after the Governor’s Warrant arrived and was served.”
State v. Ayers, 143 P.3d 251 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “The state points out that, unlike situations in which a defendant opposes extradition or seeks to contest a state’s invocation of Article IV of the IAD, under which the defendant has a right to counsel either under the IAD or the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, see ORS…”
Thomas v. Keeney, 771 P.2d 249 (Or. 1989). · cites it 2× “Supreme Court concluded, as a matter of statutory construction, that Article IV(d) of the IAD incorporates the procedural protections of section 10 of the UCEA.”
Jenkins v. Chief Just. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 416 Mass. 221 (Mass. 1993). “22, § 181 (1991); Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.787 (1991); Pa. R. Crim.”
State ex rel. Roby v. Mason, 587 P.2d 94 (Or. 1978). “ORS 133.787. The circuit court appointed counsel to represent petitioner on appeal of the court’s denial of the writ.”
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.