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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.345 (2026)

Authority to enter premises or motor vehicle; search warrant; notice of impoundment of animal; damage resulting from entry

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

      167.345 Authority to enter premises or motor vehicle; search warrant; notice of impoundment of animal; damage resulting from entry. (1) As used in this section, “peace officer” has the meaning given that term in ORS 161.015.

      (2) If there is probable cause to believe that any animal is being subjected to treatment in violation of ORS 167.315 to 167.333, 167.340, 167.355, 167.365 or 167.428, a peace officer, after obtaining a search warrant or in any other manner authorized by law, may enter the premises or motor vehicle where the animal is located to provide the animal with food, water and emergency medical treatment and may impound the animal. If after reasonable effort the owner or person having custody of the animal cannot be found and notified of the impoundment, the notice shall be conspicuously posted on the premises or motor vehicle and within 72 hours after the impoundment the notice shall be sent by certified mail to the address, if any, where the animal was impounded.

      (3) A peace officer is not liable for any damages for an entry under subsection (2) of this section, unless the damages were caused by the unnecessary actions of the peace officer that were intentional or reckless.

      (4)(a) A court may order an animal impounded under subsection (2) of this section to be held at any animal care facility in the state. A facility receiving the animal shall provide adequate food and water and may provide veterinary care.

      (b) A court may order a fighting bird impounded under subsection (2) of this section to be held on the property of the owner, possessor or keeper of the fighting bird in accordance with ORS 167.433. [Formerly 167.860; 1993 c.519 §1; 1995 c.663 §5; 2001 c.926 §12; 2009 c.550 §1; 2015 c.177 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2022 · leading case: State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 18× “ORS 167.345 provides the background to ORS 167.”
State v. Branstetter, 45 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 12× “An obvious practical problem that arises when animals are impounded under ORS 167.345 is the need to pay for the food, water, and care that they receive.”
State v. Newcomb, 375 P.3d 434 (Or. 2016). · cites it 3× “15 In her briefing in the Court of Appeals, defendant cited ORS 167.345(2), which authorizes police officers to, among other things, “impound” an animal if there is probable cause to believe the animal is a victim of any of several crimes, including animal neglect.”
State v. Branstetter, 29 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2001). · cites it 4× “A deputy investigated the complaint, found evidence of neglect, and applied for a warrant to impound the animals, as provided in ORS 167.345(2). 2 A search warrant issued and the animals were impounded and placed into the care of the Pioneer Humane Society (“the humane society’).”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 466 P.3d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 9× ““(1)(a) If an animal is impounded pursuant to ORS 167.345 and is being held by a county animal shelter or other animal care agency pending outcome of a criminal action[,] * * * prior to the final disposition of the criminal action, the county or other animal care agency or, on…”
Scott v. Jackson Cnty., 403 F. Supp. 2d 999 (D. Or. 2005). · cites it 4× “Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310 , 1318 (9th Cir.1989). Here, Animal Control officers determined that seizure of the rabbits on August 1, 2001 was necessary to prevent further neglect of the animals, given their conditions and plaintiffs repeated failure to provide adequate shelter, food,…”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 515 P.3d 899 (Or. 2022). · cites it 3× “347 provides, in part: “(1)(a) If an animal is impounded pursuant to ORS 167.345 and is being held by a county animal shelter or other animal care agency pending outcome of a criminal action charging a violation of ORS 167.”
Stirton v. Trump, 121 P.3d 714 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “347(1) then provides that, “[i]f any animal is impounded pursuant to ORS 167.345 and is being held by a county animal shelter or other animal care agency pending outcome of criminal action charging a violation of ORS 167.”
State v. Marsh, 66 P.3d 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “350(3) (1999), which provides: *50 “In addition to and not in lieu of any other sentence it may impose, a court may order the owner or person having custody of an animal to repay the reasonable costs incurred by any person or agency in providing water, food or first aid…”
John Todd v. Gale McMahon, 698 F. App'x 535 (9th Cir. 2017). “See Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.345 (2) (“[A] peace officer, after obtaining a search warrant .”
State v. Newcomb (Or. 2016). · cites it 3× “]” Assessing an animal owner’s constitutionally protected interests of possession and privacy in his or her animal in that evolving landscape of social and behavioral norms pres- ents, at best, “difficult questions,” and we are well-advised in that context “to observe the wise…”
Hsieh v. Oregon Jud. Dep't Dist. 4 Multnomah Cnty. (D. Or. 2021). “564, ORS 167.345, ORS 181A4.340, and ORS 151.216.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.345(1) — 1 case
State v. Marsh, 66 P.3d 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “350(3) (1999), which provides: *50 “In addition to and not in lieu of any other sentence it may impose, a court may order the owner or person having custody of an animal to repay the reasonable costs incurred by any person or agency in providing water, food or first aid…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.345(2) — 8 cases
State v. Newcomb, 375 P.3d 434 (Or. 2016). “15 In her briefing in the Court of Appeals, defendant cited ORS 167.345(2), which authorizes police officers to, among other things, “impound” an animal if there is probable cause to believe the animal is a victim of any of several crimes, including animal neglect.”
State v. Branstetter, 29 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2001). “A deputy investigated the complaint, found evidence of neglect, and applied for a warrant to impound the animals, as provided in ORS 167.345(2). 2 A search warrant issued and the animals were impounded and placed into the care of the Pioneer Humane Society (“the humane society’).”
State v. Branstetter, 45 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “An obvious practical problem that arises when animals are impounded under ORS 167.345 is the need to pay for the food, water, and care that they receive.”
State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “ORS 167.345 provides the background to ORS 167.”
Scott v. Jackson Cnty., 403 F. Supp. 2d 999 (D. Or. 2005). “Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310 , 1318 (9th Cir.1989). Here, Animal Control officers determined that seizure of the rabbits on August 1, 2001 was necessary to prevent further neglect of the animals, given their conditions and plaintiffs repeated failure to provide adequate shelter, food,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.345(3) — 4 cases
State v. Branstetter, 45 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “An obvious practical problem that arises when animals are impounded under ORS 167.345 is the need to pay for the food, water, and care that they receive.”
State v. Branstetter, 29 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2001). “A deputy investigated the complaint, found evidence of neglect, and applied for a warrant to impound the animals, as provided in ORS 167.345(2). 2 A search warrant issued and the animals were impounded and placed into the care of the Pioneer Humane Society (“the humane society’).”
State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “ORS 167.345 provides the background to ORS 167.”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 466 P.3d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). ““(1)(a) If an animal is impounded pursuant to ORS 167.345 and is being held by a county animal shelter or other animal care agency pending outcome of a criminal action[,] * * * prior to the final disposition of the criminal action, the county or other animal care agency or, on…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.345(4)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Newcomb, 375 P.3d 434 (Or. 2016). “15 In her briefing in the Court of Appeals, defendant cited ORS 167.345(2), which authorizes police officers to, among other things, “impound” an animal if there is probable cause to believe the animal is a victim of any of several crimes, including animal neglect.”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 466 P.3d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). ““(1)(a) If an animal is impounded pursuant to ORS 167.345 and is being held by a county animal shelter or other animal care agency pending outcome of a criminal action[,] * * * prior to the final disposition of the criminal action, the county or other animal care agency or, on…”
State v. Newcomb (Or. 2016). “]” Assessing an animal owner’s constitutionally protected interests of possession and privacy in his or her animal in that evolving landscape of social and behavioral norms pres- ents, at best, “difficult questions,” and we are well-advised in that context “to observe the wise…”
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.