Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.432 (2026)

Limitation on court’s authority to exclude relevant evidence

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

      136.432 Limitation on court’s authority to exclude relevant evidence. A court may not exclude relevant and otherwise admissible evidence in a criminal action on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of any statutory provision unless exclusion of the evidence is required by:

      (1) The United States Constitution or the Oregon Constitution;

      (2) The rules of evidence governing privileges and the admission of hearsay; or

      (3) The rights of the press. [1997 c.313 §1]

 

      Note: 136.432 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 136 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: State v. Rodgers, 227 P.3d 695 (Or. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Rodgers, 227 P.3d 695 (Or. 2010). · cites it 14× “That statute provides, in part: "A court may not exclude relevant and otherwise admissible evidence in a criminal action on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of any statutory provision unless exclusion of the evidence is required by: "(1) The United States…”
State v. Cruz-Aguirre, 972 P.2d 1206 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 46× “After the stop, the officer turned off his overhead lights, returned defendant's identification documents to him, issued a citation and told him "adios.”
State v. Hall, 115 P.3d 908 (Or. 2005). · cites it 6× “" [9] In 1997, the legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 936 (1997), which contained a provision, now codified at ORS 136.432, that limits the exclusion of evidence as an available remedy for violations of statutory provisions.”
State v. Thompson-Seed, 986 P.2d 732 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 23× “The state concedes that the records were obtained without following statutory procedures, but argues that they nevertheless are admissible under ORS 136.432, which provides that— subject to limited exceptions not pertinent to this case — relevant evidence that is otherwise…”
State v. Warner, 47 P.3d 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 10× “” The prosecutor responded that ORS 136.432 mandated that the blood-draw evidence be admitted even if it was obtained in violation of ORS 813.”
State v. Arreola-Botello, 451 P.3d 939 (Or. 2019). · cites it 3× “Since ORS 136.432 was enacted, defendants seeking to exclude evidence have, as defendant does here, asserted Cite as 365 Or 695 (2019) 701 constitutional arguments in support of their motions to suppress.”
State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 389 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2017). · cites it 2× “However, in 1997, the *173 legislature enacted ORS 136.432, which limited the ability of courts to exclude evidence as a remedy for violations of statutes such as ORS 131.”
State v. Chipman, 31 P.3d 478 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 9× “131 does not require the exclusion of the results, because ORS 136.432 makes admissible evidence derived from the type of statutory violation that occurred.”
State v. Fugate, 26 P.3d 802 (Or. 2001). · cites it 4× “3 Section 1 of SB 936, now ORS 136.432, provides: “A court may not exclude relevant and otherwise admissible evidence in a criminal action on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of any statutory provision unless exclusion of the evidence is required by: “(1) The United…”
State v. Thompkin, 143 P.3d 530 (Or. 2006). · cites it 4× “" Our conclusion that the officers' conduct violated ORS 810.”
State v. Bloom, 172 P.3d 663 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 13× “130, which the state does not concede, ORS 136.432 precludes the court from suppressing the evidence.”
State v. Peppard, 18 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 7× “2 In support of its contention, the state relies on ORS 136.432, which provides: “A court may not exclude relevant and otherwise admissible evidence in a criminal action on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of any statutory provision unless exclusion of the evidence…”
Show all 93 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.432(1) — 3 cases
State v. Arreola-Botello, 451 P.3d 939 (Or. 2019). “Since ORS 136.432 was enacted, defendants seeking to exclude evidence have, as defendant does here, asserted Cite as 365 Or 695 (2019) 701 constitutional arguments in support of their motions to suppress.”
State v. Prew, 161 P.3d 323 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Wilson, 559 P.3d 448 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
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.