137.540
Conditions of probation; evaluation and treatment; effect of failure to abide
by conditions; modification.
(1) The court may sentence the defendant to probation subject to the following
general conditions unless specifically deleted by the court. The probationer
shall:
(a) Pay fines,
restitution or fees ordered by the court.
(b) Submit to
testing for controlled substance, cannabis or alcohol use if the probationer
has a history of substance abuse or if there is a reasonable suspicion that the
probationer has illegally used controlled substances.
(c) Participate
in a substance abuse evaluation as directed by the supervising officer and
follow the recommendations of the evaluator if there are reasonable grounds to
believe there is a history of substance abuse.
(d) Remain in the
State of Oregon until written permission to leave is granted by the Department
of Corrections or a county community corrections agency.
(e) Not change
residence without prior permission from the Department of Corrections or a
county community corrections agency and inform the parole and probation officer
of any change in employment.
(f) Permit the
parole and probation officer to visit the probationer or the probationer’s work
site or residence and to conduct a walk-through of the common areas and of the
rooms in the residence occupied by or under the control of the probationer.
(g) Consent to
the search of person, vehicle or premises upon the request of a representative
of the supervising officer if the supervising officer has reasonable grounds to
believe that evidence of a violation will be found, and submit to
fingerprinting or photographing, or both, when requested by the Department of
Corrections or a county community corrections agency for supervision purposes.
(h) Obey all
laws, municipal, county, state and federal, and in circumstances in which state
and federal law conflict, obey state law.
(i) Promptly and
truthfully answer all reasonable inquiries by the Department of Corrections or
a county community corrections agency.
(j) Not possess
weapons, firearms or dangerous animals.
(k) Report as
required and abide by the direction of the supervising officer.
(L) If
recommended by the supervising officer, successfully complete a sex offender
treatment program approved by the supervising officer and submit to polygraph
examinations at the direction of the supervising officer if the probationer:
(A) Is under
supervision for a sex crime as defined in ORS 163A.005 or harassment under ORS
166.065 (4)(a)(A);
(B) Was
previously convicted of a sex crime as defined in ORS 163A.005; or
(C) Was
previously convicted in another jurisdiction of an offense that would
constitute a sex crime as defined in ORS 163A.005 if committed in this state.
(m) Participate
in a mental health evaluation as directed by the supervising officer and follow
the recommendation of the evaluator.
(n) If required
to report as a sex offender under ORS 163A.015, report with the Department of
State Police, a city police department, a county sheriff’s office or the
supervising agency:
(A) When
supervision begins;
(B) Within 10
days of a change in residence;
(C) Once each
year within 10 days of the probationer’s date of birth;
(D) Within 10
days of the first day the person works at, carries on a vocation at or attends
an institution of higher education; and
(E) Within 10
days of a change in work, vocation or attendance status at an institution of
higher education.
(o) Submit to a
risk and needs assessment as directed by the supervising officer and follow
reasonable recommendations resulting from the assessment.
(2) In addition
to the general conditions, the court may impose any special conditions of
probation that are reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs
of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the
probationer, or both, including, but not limited to, that the probationer
shall:
(a) For crimes
committed prior to November 1, 1989, and misdemeanors committed on or after
November 1, 1989, be confined to the county jail or be restricted to the
probationer’s own residence or to the premises thereof, or be subject to any
combination of such confinement and restriction, such confinement or
restriction or combination thereof to be for a period not to exceed one year or
one-half of the maximum period of confinement that could be imposed for the
offense for which the defendant is convicted, whichever is the lesser.
(b) For felonies
committed on or after November 1, 1989:
(A) Be confined
in the county jail, or be subject to other custodial sanctions under community
supervision, or both, as provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice
Commission; and
(B) Comply with
any special conditions of probation that are imposed by the supervising officer
in accordance with subsection (9) of this section.
(c) For crimes
committed on or after December 5, 1996, sell any assets of the probationer as
specifically ordered by the court in order to pay restitution.
(d) For crimes
constituting delivery of a controlled substance, as those terms are defined in
ORS 475.005, or for telephonic harassment under ORS 166.090, or for crimes
involving domestic violence, as defined in ORS 135.230, be prohibited from
using Internet websites that provide anonymous text message services.
(e) Not use or
possess controlled substances except pursuant to a medical prescription.
(3)(a) If a
person is released on probation following conviction of stalking under ORS
163.732 (2)(b) or violating a court’s stalking protective order under ORS
163.750 (2)(b), the court may include as a special condition of the person’s
probation reasonable residency restrictions.
(b) If the court
imposes the special condition of probation described in this subsection and if
at any time during the period of probation the victim moves to a location that
causes the probationer to be in violation of the special condition of probation,
the court may not require the probationer to change the probationer’s residence
in order to comply with the special condition of probation.
(4) When a person
who is a sex offender is released on probation, the court shall impose as a
special condition of probation that the person not reside in any dwelling in
which another sex offender who is on probation, parole or post-prison
supervision resides, without the approval of the person’s supervising parole
and probation officer, or in which more than one other sex offender who is on
probation, parole or post-prison supervision resides, without the approval of
the director of the probation agency that is supervising the person or of the
county manager of the Department of Corrections, or a designee of the director
or manager. As soon as practicable, the supervising parole and probation
officer of a person subject to the requirements of this subsection shall review
the person’s living arrangement with the person’s sex offender treatment
provider to ensure that the arrangement supports the goals of offender
rehabilitation and community safety. As used in this subsection:
(a) “Dwelling”
has the meaning given that term in ORS 469B.100.
(b) “Dwelling”
does not include a residential treatment facility or a halfway house.
(c) “Halfway
house” means a publicly or privately operated profit or nonprofit residential
facility that provides rehabilitative care and treatment for sex offenders.
(d) “Sex offender”
has the meaning given that term in ORS 163A.005.
(5)(a) If the
person is released on probation following conviction of a sex crime, as defined
in ORS 163A.005, or an assault, as defined in ORS 163.175 or 163.185, and the
victim was under 18 years of age, the court, if requested by the victim, shall
include as a special condition of the person’s probation that the person not
reside within three miles of the victim unless:
(A) The victim
resides in a county having a population of less than 130,000 and the person is
required to reside in that county;
(B) The person
demonstrates to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that no mental
intimidation or pressure was brought to bear during the commission of the
crime;
(C) The person
demonstrates to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that imposition of
the condition will deprive the person of a residence that would be materially
significant in aiding in the rehabilitation of the person or in the success of
the probation; or
(D) The person
resides in a halfway house. As used in this subparagraph, “halfway house” means
a publicly or privately operated profit or nonprofit residential facility that
provides rehabilitative care and treatment for sex offenders.
(b) A victim may
request imposition of the special condition of probation described in this
subsection at the time of sentencing in person or through the prosecuting
attorney.
(c) If the court
imposes the special condition of probation described in this subsection and if
at any time during the period of probation the victim moves to within three
miles of the probationer’s residence, the court may not require the probationer
to change the probationer’s residence in order to comply with the special
condition of probation.
(6) When a person
who is a sex offender, as defined in ORS 163A.005, is released on probation,
the Department of Corrections or the county community corrections agency,
whichever is appropriate, shall notify the city police department, if the
person is going to reside within a city, and the county sheriff’s office of the
county in which the person is going to reside of the person’s release and the
conditions of the person’s release.
(7) Failure to
abide by all general and special conditions of probation may result in arrest,
modification of conditions, revocation of probation or imposition of
structured, intermediate sanctions in accordance with rules adopted under ORS
137.595.
(8) The court may
order that probation be supervised by the court.
(9)(a) The court
may at any time modify the conditions of probation.
(b) When the
court orders a defendant placed under the supervision of the Department of
Corrections or a community corrections agency, the supervising officer may file
with the court a proposed modification to the special conditions of probation.
The supervising officer shall provide a copy of the proposed modification to
the district attorney and the probationer, and shall notify the probationer of
the right to file an objection and have a hearing as described in subparagraph
(A) of this paragraph. The notice requirement may be satisfied by providing the
probationer with a copy of a form developed in accordance with rules adopted
under ORS 137.595 (2)(b) that describes the right to a hearing. If the district
attorney or probationer:
(A) Files an
objection to the proposed modification less than five judicial days after the
proposed modification was filed, the court shall schedule a hearing no later
than 10 judicial days after the proposed modification was filed, unless the
court finds good cause to schedule a hearing at a later time.
(B) Does not file
an objection to the proposed modification less than five judicial days after
the proposed modification was filed, the proposed modification becomes
effective five judicial days after the proposed modification was filed.
(10) A court may
not order revocation of probation as a result of the probationer’s failure to
pay restitution unless the court determines from the totality of the
circumstances that the purposes of the probation are not being served.
(11) If the court
ordered as a special condition of probation that the probationer find and
maintain employment, it is not a cause for revocation of probation that the
probationer failed to apply for or accept employment at any workplace where
there is a labor dispute in progress. As used in this subsection, “labor
dispute” has the meaning for that term provided in ORS 662.010.
(12) As used in
this section, “attends,” “institution of higher education,” “works” and “carries
on a vocation” have the meanings given those terms in ORS 163A.005. [Amended by
1965 c.346 §1; 1969 c.597 §125; 1977 c.371 §3; 1977 c.380 §2; 1981 c.671 §1;
1983 c.588 §2; 1985 c.818 §2; 1987 c.780 §3; 1989 c.790 §16; 1991 c.196 §1;
1991 c.630 §5; 1991 c.731 §1; 1993 c.14 §11; 1993 c.680 §16; 1997 c.313 §24;
1999 c.626 §11; amendments by 1999 c.626 §34 repealed by 2001 c.884 §1; 2001
c.726 §§1,2; 2001 c.884 §5; 2005 c.264 §3; 2005 c.558 §1; 2005 c.567 §8; 2005
c.576 §1a; 2005 c.642 §1; 2009 c.111 §1; 2009 c.204 §5; 2009 c.659 §§21,23;
2009 c.713 §11; 2011 c.595 §162; 2013 c.649 §24; 2015 c.198 §1; 2015 c.350 §2;
2017 c.21 §40; 2017 c.670 §3; 2017 c.689 §1; 2018 c.120 §10; 2021 c.404 §1;
2021 c.653 §3; 2022 c.78 §10; 2023 c.9 §9; 2023 c.282 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
305
cases (
76 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case:
State v. Bowden, 425 P.3d 475 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Bowden, 425 P.3d 475 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 25× “542(2) then provides: "Notwithstanding ORS 137.540, the conditions of supervision of a person who holds a registry identification card and is sentenced to probation related to the use of usable marijuana, medical cannabinoid products, cannabinoid concentrates or cannabinoid…”
State v. Heaston, 482 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 49× “On both counts, defendant was sen- tenced to probation, including “all general conditions of pro- bation (ORS 137.540).” ORS 137.540(1)(b) provides that, as a general condition of probation, a probationer is prohibited from using or possessing “controlled substances except pur-…”
State v. Baccaro, 452 P.3d 1022 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 20× “Hillman, 293 Or App 231 , 426 P3d 249 (2018), in which we held that the trial court erred by imposing a probation violation fee pursuant to a different statute, ORS 137.540 (11)(a) (2015), in the written judgment when that fee was not announced in the defendant’s presence.”
State v. Hardges, 432 P.3d 268 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 29× “]"); ORS 137.540 (1)(o) ("Participate in a mental health evaluation as directed by the supervising officer and follow the recommendation of the evaluator.”
State v. Stalheim, 552 P.2d 829 (Or. 1976).
· cites it 16× “ORS 137.540(10) authorizes a sentencing court to require as a condition of probation that the defendant shall "Make reparation or restitution to the aggrieved party for the damage or loss caused by [the] offense, in an amount to be determined by the court.”
State v. Kelemen, 437 P.3d 1225 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 11× “540(1)(b), and the general condition that defendant "[r]eport as required and abide by the direction of the supervising officer," ORS 137.540(1)(m).”
State v. Borders, 429 P.3d 1067 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 14× “Prior to 1981, ORS 137.540 did not distinguish between general and special conditions of probation or contain any express limitations on the conditions that could be imposed.”
State v. Guzman, 990 P.2d 370 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 24× “On appeal, the state contends that defendant's probation officer had authority to search under ORS 137.540. Specifically, it argues: "Home visits, which were authorized by defendant's terms of probation, are routine.”
State v. Johnson, 540 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 17× “He argues that because the legisla- ture has enacted a general condition of probation providing for submission to polygraphs in limited circumstances, ORS 137.540(1)(L),1 sentencing courts lack authority to impose a special condition of probation requiring polygraphs in broader…”
State v. Johnston, 31 P.3d 1101 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 21× “151 precluded the court’s order in this case if, in the first instance, the trial court lacked authority under ORS 137.540 or other applicable statute to order defendant, as a condition of probation, to pay per diem costs of his time served in the county jail.”
State v. Cortes, 374 Or. 461 (Or. 2025).
· cites it 61× “Our task is more grounded; we are only called upon to decide what the Oregon legislature intended to be considered a weapon for purposes of ORS 137.540. Here, based on the text, con- text, and legislative history of ORS 137.”
State v. Zamora-Martinez, 150 P.3d 25 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 24× “In the absence of some kind of arrangement for defendant to continue to be supervised after he was deported, the only reasonable inference from the record is that the trial court intended, as ORS 137.540 authorized it to do, to delete the requirement that defendant be supervised…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1) — 44 cases
State v. Guzman, 990 P.2d 370 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“On appeal, the state contends that defendant's probation officer had authority to search under ORS 137.540. Specifically, it argues: "Home visits, which were authorized by defendant's terms of probation, are routine.”
State v. Zamora-Martinez, 150 P.3d 25 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“In the absence of some kind of arrangement for defendant to continue to be supervised after he was deported, the only reasonable inference from the record is that the trial court intended, as ORS 137.540 authorized it to do, to delete the requirement that defendant be supervised…”
State v. Bowden, 425 P.3d 475 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“542(2) then provides: "Notwithstanding ORS 137.540, the conditions of supervision of a person who holds a registry identification card and is sentenced to probation related to the use of usable marijuana, medical cannabinoid products, cannabinoid concentrates or cannabinoid…”
State v. Baccaro, 452 P.3d 1022 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Hillman, 293 Or App 231 , 426 P3d 249 (2018), in which we held that the trial court erred by imposing a probation violation fee pursuant to a different statute, ORS 137.540 (11)(a) (2015), in the written judgment when that fee was not announced in the defendant’s presence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(L) — 3 cases
State v. Johnson, 540 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“He argues that because the legisla- ture has enacted a general condition of probation providing for submission to polygraphs in limited circumstances, ORS 137.540(1)(L),1 sentencing courts lack authority to impose a special condition of probation requiring polygraphs in broader…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(a) — 7 cases
State v. Baccaro, 452 P.3d 1022 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Hillman, 293 Or App 231 , 426 P3d 249 (2018), in which we held that the trial court erred by imposing a probation violation fee pursuant to a different statute, ORS 137.540 (11)(a) (2015), in the written judgment when that fee was not announced in the defendant’s presence.”
State v. Hardges, 432 P.3d 268 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“]"); ORS 137.540 (1)(o) ("Participate in a mental health evaluation as directed by the supervising officer and follow the recommendation of the evaluator.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(b) — 17 cases
State v. Heaston, 482 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“On both counts, defendant was sen- tenced to probation, including “all general conditions of pro- bation (ORS 137.540).” ORS 137.540(1)(b) provides that, as a general condition of probation, a probationer is prohibited from using or possessing “controlled substances except pur-…”
State v. Bowden, 425 P.3d 475 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“542(2) then provides: "Notwithstanding ORS 137.540, the conditions of supervision of a person who holds a registry identification card and is sentenced to probation related to the use of usable marijuana, medical cannabinoid products, cannabinoid concentrates or cannabinoid…”
State v. Kelemen, 437 P.3d 1225 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“540(1)(b), and the general condition that defendant "[r]eport as required and abide by the direction of the supervising officer," ORS 137.540(1)(m).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Heaston, 482 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“On both counts, defendant was sen- tenced to probation, including “all general conditions of pro- bation (ORS 137.540).” ORS 137.540(1)(b) provides that, as a general condition of probation, a probationer is prohibited from using or possessing “controlled substances except pur-…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(d) — 3 cases
State v. Bowden, 425 P.3d 475 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“542(2) then provides: "Notwithstanding ORS 137.540, the conditions of supervision of a person who holds a registry identification card and is sentenced to probation related to the use of usable marijuana, medical cannabinoid products, cannabinoid concentrates or cannabinoid…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(e) — 4 cases
State v. Zamora-Martinez, 150 P.3d 25 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“In the absence of some kind of arrangement for defendant to continue to be supervised after he was deported, the only reasonable inference from the record is that the trial court intended, as ORS 137.540 authorized it to do, to delete the requirement that defendant be supervised…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(f) — 3 cases
State v. Cortes, 374 Or. 461 (Or. 2025).
“Our task is more grounded; we are only called upon to decide what the Oregon legislature intended to be considered a weapon for purposes of ORS 137.540. Here, based on the text, con- text, and legislative history of ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(g) — 4 cases
State v. Cortes, 374 Or. 461 (Or. 2025).
“Our task is more grounded; we are only called upon to decide what the Oregon legislature intended to be considered a weapon for purposes of ORS 137.540. Here, based on the text, con- text, and legislative history of ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(h) — 7 cases
State v. Cortes, 374 Or. 461 (Or. 2025).
“Our task is more grounded; we are only called upon to decide what the Oregon legislature intended to be considered a weapon for purposes of ORS 137.540. Here, based on the text, con- text, and legislative history of ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(i) — 7 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(j) — 10 cases
State v. Cortes, 374 Or. 461 (Or. 2025).
“Our task is more grounded; we are only called upon to decide what the Oregon legislature intended to be considered a weapon for purposes of ORS 137.540. Here, based on the text, con- text, and legislative history of ORS 137.”
State v. Kelemen, 437 P.3d 1225 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“540(1)(b), and the general condition that defendant "[r]eport as required and abide by the direction of the supervising officer," ORS 137.540(1)(m).”
State v. Heaston, 482 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“On both counts, defendant was sen- tenced to probation, including “all general conditions of pro- bation (ORS 137.540).” ORS 137.540(1)(b) provides that, as a general condition of probation, a probationer is prohibited from using or possessing “controlled substances except pur-…”
State v. Zamora-Martinez, 150 P.3d 25 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“In the absence of some kind of arrangement for defendant to continue to be supervised after he was deported, the only reasonable inference from the record is that the trial court intended, as ORS 137.540 authorized it to do, to delete the requirement that defendant be supervised…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(k) — 8 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(m) — 10 cases
State v. Hardges, 432 P.3d 268 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“]"); ORS 137.540 (1)(o) ("Participate in a mental health evaluation as directed by the supervising officer and follow the recommendation of the evaluator.”
State v. Kelemen, 437 P.3d 1225 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“540(1)(b), and the general condition that defendant "[r]eport as required and abide by the direction of the supervising officer," ORS 137.540(1)(m).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(n) — 2 cases
State v. Hardges, 432 P.3d 268 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“]"); ORS 137.540 (1)(o) ("Participate in a mental health evaluation as directed by the supervising officer and follow the recommendation of the evaluator.”
State v. Johnson, 540 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“He argues that because the legisla- ture has enacted a general condition of probation providing for submission to polygraphs in limited circumstances, ORS 137.540(1)(L),1 sentencing courts lack authority to impose a special condition of probation requiring polygraphs in broader…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(o) — 1 case
State v. Zamora-Martinez, 150 P.3d 25 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“In the absence of some kind of arrangement for defendant to continue to be supervised after he was deported, the only reasonable inference from the record is that the trial court intended, as ORS 137.540 authorized it to do, to delete the requirement that defendant be supervised…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(10) — 26 cases
State v. Stalheim, 552 P.2d 829 (Or. 1976).
“ORS 137.540(10) authorizes a sentencing court to require as a condition of probation that the defendant shall "Make reparation or restitution to the aggrieved party for the damage or loss caused by [the] offense, in an amount to be determined by the court.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(11)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(12)(a) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2) — 119 cases
State v. Bowden, 425 P.3d 475 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“542(2) then provides: "Notwithstanding ORS 137.540, the conditions of supervision of a person who holds a registry identification card and is sentenced to probation related to the use of usable marijuana, medical cannabinoid products, cannabinoid concentrates or cannabinoid…”
State v. Borders, 429 P.3d 1067 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“Prior to 1981, ORS 137.540 did not distinguish between general and special conditions of probation or contain any express limitations on the conditions that could be imposed.”
State v. Johnson, 540 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“He argues that because the legisla- ture has enacted a general condition of probation providing for submission to polygraphs in limited circumstances, ORS 137.540(1)(L),1 sentencing courts lack authority to impose a special condition of probation requiring polygraphs in broader…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(K) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(L) — 4 cases
State v. Johnson, 540 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“He argues that because the legisla- ture has enacted a general condition of probation providing for submission to polygraphs in limited circumstances, ORS 137.540(1)(L),1 sentencing courts lack authority to impose a special condition of probation requiring polygraphs in broader…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(a) — 15 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(b)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(b)(B) — 1 case
State v. Hardges, 432 P.3d 268 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“]"); ORS 137.540 (1)(o) ("Participate in a mental health evaluation as directed by the supervising officer and follow the recommendation of the evaluator.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(e) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(f) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(g) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(h)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(h)(B) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(h)(D) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(j) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(k) — 7 cases
State v. Cortes, 374 Or. 461 (Or. 2025).
“Our task is more grounded; we are only called upon to decide what the Oregon legislature intended to be considered a weapon for purposes of ORS 137.540. Here, based on the text, con- text, and legislative history of ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(2)(m) — 10 cases
State v. Guzman, 990 P.2d 370 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“On appeal, the state contends that defendant's probation officer had authority to search under ORS 137.540. Specifically, it argues: "Home visits, which were authorized by defendant's terms of probation, are routine.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(3) — 2 cases
State v. Baccaro, 452 P.3d 1022 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Hillman, 293 Or App 231 , 426 P3d 249 (2018), in which we held that the trial court erred by imposing a probation violation fee pursuant to a different statute, ORS 137.540 (11)(a) (2015), in the written judgment when that fee was not announced in the defendant’s presence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(3)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(4) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(5) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(6) — 14 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(7) — 15 cases
State v. Baccaro, 452 P.3d 1022 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Hillman, 293 Or App 231 , 426 P3d 249 (2018), in which we held that the trial court erred by imposing a probation violation fee pursuant to a different statute, ORS 137.540 (11)(a) (2015), in the written judgment when that fee was not announced in the defendant’s presence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(8) — 8 cases
State v. Baccaro, 452 P.3d 1022 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Hillman, 293 Or App 231 , 426 P3d 249 (2018), in which we held that the trial court erred by imposing a probation violation fee pursuant to a different statute, ORS 137.540 (11)(a) (2015), in the written judgment when that fee was not announced in the defendant’s presence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(9) — 8 cases
State v. Hardges, 432 P.3d 268 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“]"); ORS 137.540 (1)(o) ("Participate in a mental health evaluation as directed by the supervising officer and follow the recommendation of the evaluator.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(9)(a) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(9)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Hardges, 432 P.3d 268 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“]"); ORS 137.540 (1)(o) ("Participate in a mental health evaluation as directed by the supervising officer and follow the recommendation of the evaluator.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(h) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(i) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(l)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Johnston, 31 P.3d 1101 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“151 precluded the court’s order in this case if, in the first instance, the trial court lacked authority under ORS 137.540 or other applicable statute to order defendant, as a condition of probation, to pay per diem costs of his time served in the county jail.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(l)(c) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(l)(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(l)(h) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(l)(i) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(l)(j) — 4 cases
State v. Zamora-Martinez, 150 P.3d 25 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“In the absence of some kind of arrangement for defendant to continue to be supervised after he was deported, the only reasonable inference from the record is that the trial court intended, as ORS 137.540 authorized it to do, to delete the requirement that defendant be supervised…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(l)(m) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(l)(o) — 1 case
State v. Zamora-Martinez, 150 P.3d 25 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“In the absence of some kind of arrangement for defendant to continue to be supervised after he was deported, the only reasonable inference from the record is that the trial court intended, as ORS 137.540 authorized it to do, to delete the requirement that defendant be supervised…”
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.