161.233 Use of
physical force by peace officer.
(1) A peace officer may use physical force upon another person only when it is
objectively reasonable, under the totality of circumstances known to the peace
officer, to believe:
(a) That the
person poses an imminent threat of physical injury to the peace officer or to a
third person; or
(b) That the use
of physical force is necessary to:
(A) Make a lawful
arrest when the peace officer has probable cause to believe the person has
committed a crime; or
(B) Prevent the
escape from custody of the person when the peace officer has probable cause to
believe the person has committed a crime.
(2) A peace
officer may use physical force upon another person under this section only to
the degree that the peace officer reasonably believes necessary to prevent
physical injury under subsection (1)(a) of this section or to carry out a
purpose described in subsection (1)(b) of this section.
(3) Prior to
using physical force upon another person, if the peace officer has a reasonable
opportunity to do so, the peace officer shall:
(a) Consider
alternatives such as verbal de-escalation, waiting or using other available
resources and techniques if reasonable, safe and feasible; and
(b) Give a verbal
warning to the person that physical force may be used and provide the person
with a reasonable opportunity to comply. [2020 s.s.2 c.3 §7]
161.235 [1971 c.743 §27; 2020 s.s.1 c.3 §3;
repealed by 2021 s.s.2 c.3 §17]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2023–2026 · leading case:
Craig (D. Or. 2026).
Fonseca v. City of Medford (D. Or. 2025).
· cites it 2× “§ 161.233(1). The police officer must believe either (1) that the person poses an imminent threat of physical injury or (2) that the use of force is necessary to make a lawful arrest or prevent an Page 21 — Opinion and Order escape from custody when the officer has probable…”
Craig (D. Or. 2026).
· cites it 2× “The officers thus had legal authority under ORS 161.233 to use reasonable force against Plaintiff.”
Bracken v. Douglas Cnty. (D. Or. 2023).
“” ORS 161.233(1)(b)(A). There is a privilege under Oregon law that protects police officers from liability for assault and battery when “the physical violence exerted by the officers against plaintiff was no more than necessary to accomplish the legitimate purpose of fulfilling…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.233(1) — 1 case
Fonseca v. City of Medford (D. Or. 2025).
“§ 161.233(1). The police officer must believe either (1) that the person poses an imminent threat of physical injury or (2) that the use of force is necessary to make a lawful arrest or prevent an Page 21 — Opinion and Order escape from custody when the officer has probable…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.233(1)(a) — 1 case
Fonseca v. City of Medford (D. Or. 2025).
“§ 161.233(1). The police officer must believe either (1) that the person poses an imminent threat of physical injury or (2) that the use of force is necessary to make a lawful arrest or prevent an Page 21 — Opinion and Order escape from custody when the officer has probable…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.233(1)(b) — 1 case
Craig (D. Or. 2026).
“The officers thus had legal authority under ORS 161.233 to use reasonable force against Plaintiff.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.233(1)(b)(A) — 1 case
Bracken v. Douglas Cnty. (D. Or. 2023).
“” ORS 161.233(1)(b)(A). There is a privilege under Oregon law that protects police officers from liability for assault and battery when “the physical violence exerted by the officers against plaintiff was no more than necessary to accomplish the legitimate purpose of fulfilling…”
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.