Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 153.039 (2026)

Stop and detention for violation

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

      153.039 Stop and detention for violation. (1) An enforcement officer may not arrest, stop or detain a person for the commission of a violation except to the extent provided in this section and ORS 810.410.

      (2) An enforcement officer may stop and detain any person if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a violation. An enforcement officer may stop and detain any employee, agent or representative of a firm, corporation or other organization if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the firm, corporation or other organization has committed a violation.

      (3) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, the period of detention may be only as long as is necessary to:

      (a) Establish the identity of the person, firm, corporation or organization believed to have committed the violation;

      (b) Conduct any investigation reasonably related to the violation; and

      (c) Issue a citation for the violation.

      (4) The authority of an enforcement officer to stop and detain a person for a traffic violation as defined by ORS 801.557 is governed by ORS 810.410. [1999 c.1051 §10]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2024 · leading case: State v. Regnier, 212 P.3d 1269 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Regnier, 212 P.3d 1269 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “605(5) into ORS 153.039(1). However, even if we give the state the benefit of its proposed statutory interpretation, we need not reach the issue of whether the trial court correctly interpreted ORS 153.”
State v. Brownlee, 461 P.3d 1015 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “See ORS 153.039 (permitting officers to stop and detain persons suspected of viola- tions to allow for a reasonable investigation, but not authorizing arrests); see also Tallman, 76 Or App at 718 (discussing former ORS 133.”
State v. Whitten, 379 P.3d 707 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “410(3)(a) (providing that police officer “[s]hall not arrest a person for a traffic violation”); ORS 153.039(3) (providing that a person may be detained in the course of a stop for a violation “only as long as is necessary to: (a) [establish the identity of the person * * *…”
State v. Benoit, 311 P.3d 874 (Or. 2013). “Enforcement officers are expressly forbidden from arresting a person for the commission of a violation, and they may stop and detain a person whom they have reasonable grounds to believe has committed a violation for only as long as it takes to establish the person’s identity,…”
Santiago v. Tykol (D. Or. 2024). · cites it 2× “Or. Rev. Stat. § 153.039 (3). Plaintiff concedes that this initial stop was lawful.”
State v. Jenson, 184 P.3d 1194 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “ORS 153.039(3). None of those provisions makes the process criminal, in constitutional terms.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 153.039(1) — 1 case
State v. Regnier, 212 P.3d 1269 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “605(5) into ORS 153.039(1). However, even if we give the state the benefit of its proposed statutory interpretation, we need not reach the issue of whether the trial court correctly interpreted ORS 153.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 153.039(2) — 1 case
State v. Regnier, 212 P.3d 1269 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “605(5) into ORS 153.039(1). However, even if we give the state the benefit of its proposed statutory interpretation, we need not reach the issue of whether the trial court correctly interpreted ORS 153.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 153.039(3) — 2 cases
State v. Whitten, 379 P.3d 707 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “410(3)(a) (providing that police officer “[s]hall not arrest a person for a traffic violation”); ORS 153.039(3) (providing that a person may be detained in the course of a stop for a violation “only as long as is necessary to: (a) [establish the identity of the person * * *…”
State v. Jenson, 184 P.3d 1194 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “ORS 153.039(3). None of those provisions makes the process criminal, in constitutional terms.”
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.