167.347
Forfeiture of animal to animal care agency prior to disposition of criminal
action. (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 167.315 to 167.333, 167.340, 167.355, 167.365 or
167.428, prior to the final disposition of the criminal action, the county or
other animal care agency or, on behalf of the county or other animal care
agency, the district attorney, may file a petition in the criminal action
requesting that the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the county or
other animal care agency prior to the final disposition of the criminal action.
The petitioner shall serve a true copy of the petition upon the defendant and,
unless the district attorney has filed the petition on behalf of the county or
other animal care agency, the district attorney.
(b) A petition
may be filed in the criminal action under paragraph (a) of this subsection
concerning any animal impounded under ORS 167.345 and held pending the outcome
of the criminal action, regardless of whether the specific animal is the
subject of a criminal charge, or named in the charging instrument, in the
criminal action.
(2)(a) Upon
receipt of a petition pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the court
shall set a hearing on the petition. The hearing shall be conducted within 14
days after the filing of the petition, or as soon as practicable.
(b) To provide
notice on any potential claimant who may have an interest in any animals
impounded pursuant to ORS 167.345 and as an alternate form of service upon a
defendant who cannot be personally served as required in subsection (1) of this
section, a petitioner may publish notice of the filing of the petition, printed
twice weekly for up to 14 consecutive days in a daily or weekly newspaper, as
defined in ORS 193.010, published in the county in which the hearing is to be
held or, if there is none, in a daily or weekly newspaper, as defined in ORS
193.010, generally circulated in the county in which the hearing is to be held.
The notice of the filing of the petition required under this subsection shall
contain a description of the impounded animal or animals, the name of the owner
or reputed owner thereof, the location from which the animal or animals were
impounded and the time and place of the hearing if the hearing has been set at
the time of publication, or otherwise the name, address and phone number for
the attorney for the petitioner, who shall upon request provide further details
on the hearing date, place and time.
(3) At a hearing
conducted pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, the petitioner shall have
the burden of establishing probable cause to believe that the animal was
subjected to a violation of ORS 167.315 to 167.333, 167.340, 167.355, 167.365
or 167.428. The defendant or any other claimant shall have an opportunity to be
heard before the court makes its final finding. If the court finds that
probable cause exists, the court shall order immediate forfeiture of the animal
to the petitioner, unless the defendant or any other claimant, within 72 hours
of the hearing, posts a security deposit or bond with the court clerk in an
amount determined by the court to be sufficient to repay all reasonable costs
incurred, and anticipated to be incurred, by the petitioner in caring for the
animal from the date of initial impoundment to the date of trial.
(4) If a security
deposit or bond has been posted in accordance with subsection (3) of this
section, and the trial in the action is continued at a later date, any order of
continuance shall require the defendant or any other claimant to post an
additional security deposit or bond in an amount determined by the court that
shall be sufficient to repay all additional reasonable costs anticipated to be
incurred by the petitioner in caring for the animal until the new date of
trial.
(5) If a security
deposit or bond has been posted in accordance with subsection (4) of this
section, the petitioner may draw from that security deposit or bond the actual
reasonable costs incurred by the petitioner in caring for any impounded animal
from the date of initial impoundment to the date of final disposition of the
animal in the related criminal action.
(6) The
provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, the
provisions of ORS 167.350 and 167.435 and ORS chapters 87 and 88. [1995 c.369 §2;
2001 c.926 §13; 2009 c.550 §2; 2011 c.455 §1; 2013 c.719 §7; 2017 c.279 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2022 · leading case:
State v. Branstetter, 45 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Branstetter, 45 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 62× “See generally ORS 167.347 (permitting impounded animals to be forfeited prior to final disposition of criminal charges under some circumstances).”
State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 80× “After the first trial, and before the second trial, Pioneer filed a petition in the criminal proceeding seeking forfeiture of the animals pursuant to ORS 167.347. [2] The state moved to amend Pioneer's petition so that the state would become a copetitioner.”
State v. Branstetter, 29 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2001).
· cites it 21× “330, the forfeiture order was based on a different statute, ORS 167.347. That statute provides for forfeiture of animals that have been impounded pending final disposition of a criminal animal-neglect charge, and does not make the forfeiture contingent on the defendant being…”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 466 P.3d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 51× “The proceeding under ORS 167.347 is not the kind of forfeiture pro- ceeding that existed at the time of the adoption of Article I, section 17, and it does not involve the kinds of determinations that are typically made by a jury.”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 515 P.3d 899 (Or. 2022).
· cites it 32× “347, asserting that there was probable cause to believe that the animals had been subjected to criminal mistreatment and seeking immediate forfeiture of the impounded animals or, in the alternative, the payment of a security deposit or bond to cover the costs of caring for the…”
State v. Hart, 72 P.3d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“More specifically, the court explained that, although a forfeiture proceeding under ORS 167.347 cannot go forward in the absence of a criminal action, “that kind of forfeiture proceeding does not arise out of the criminal action, resolve any controversy in the criminal action,…”
Stirton v. Trump, 121 P.3d 714 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “On March 3, 2004, the county that had impounded the animals filed a petition for forfeiture of the 31 dogs under ORS 167.347(1). The criminal case and the forfeiture action were bifurcated, and trial on the latter action was set for April 6, 2004, before the Drain Justice Court.”
State v. Crow, 429 P.3d 1053 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" See also ORS 167.347 (authorizing court to order forfeiture of impounded animals prior to the final disposition of the criminal action when the defendant is charged with unlawfully possessing an animal).”
City of Lebanon v. Milburn, 398 P.3d 486 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“This circumstance—-a forfeiture that is part of a sentence for a judgment of conviction—-should be distinguished from a predisposition forfeiture, which rests on other grounds, as provided in ORS 167.347 (permitting impounded animals to be forfeited prior to final disposition…”
Just. v. Vercher, 518 P.3d 131 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Hershey, 370 Or 200 , 515 P3d 899 (2022) (an owner does not have an Article I, section 17, right to a jury trial on a petition to forfeit an animal under ORS 167.347); Newcomb, 359 Or at 771-72 (a person has no cognizable Article I, section 9, property or privacy right in a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.347(1) — 5 cases
State v. Branstetter, 29 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2001).
“330, the forfeiture order was based on a different statute, ORS 167.347. That statute provides for forfeiture of animals that have been impounded pending final disposition of a criminal animal-neglect charge, and does not make the forfeiture contingent on the defendant being…”
State v. Branstetter, 45 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“See generally ORS 167.347 (permitting impounded animals to be forfeited prior to final disposition of criminal charges under some circumstances).”
State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“After the first trial, and before the second trial, Pioneer filed a petition in the criminal proceeding seeking forfeiture of the animals pursuant to ORS 167.347. [2] The state moved to amend Pioneer's petition so that the state would become a copetitioner.”
Stirton v. Trump, 121 P.3d 714 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“On March 3, 2004, the county that had impounded the animals filed a petition for forfeiture of the 31 dogs under ORS 167.347(1). The criminal case and the forfeiture action were bifurcated, and trial on the latter action was set for April 6, 2004, before the Drain Justice Court.”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 466 P.3d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“The proceeding under ORS 167.347 is not the kind of forfeiture pro- ceeding that existed at the time of the adoption of Article I, section 17, and it does not involve the kinds of determinations that are typically made by a jury.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.347(2) — 1 case
State v. Branstetter, 29 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2001).
“330, the forfeiture order was based on a different statute, ORS 167.347. That statute provides for forfeiture of animals that have been impounded pending final disposition of a criminal animal-neglect charge, and does not make the forfeiture contingent on the defendant being…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.347(3) — 3 cases
State v. Branstetter, 45 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“See generally ORS 167.347 (permitting impounded animals to be forfeited prior to final disposition of criminal charges under some circumstances).”
State v. Branstetter, 29 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2001).
“330, the forfeiture order was based on a different statute, ORS 167.347. That statute provides for forfeiture of animals that have been impounded pending final disposition of a criminal animal-neglect charge, and does not make the forfeiture contingent on the defendant being…”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 466 P.3d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“The proceeding under ORS 167.347 is not the kind of forfeiture pro- ceeding that existed at the time of the adoption of Article I, section 17, and it does not involve the kinds of determinations that are typically made by a jury.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.347(3)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“After the first trial, and before the second trial, Pioneer filed a petition in the criminal proceeding seeking forfeiture of the animals pursuant to ORS 167.347. [2] The state moved to amend Pioneer's petition so that the state would become a copetitioner.”
State v. Branstetter, 45 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“See generally ORS 167.347 (permitting impounded animals to be forfeited prior to final disposition of criminal charges under some circumstances).”
State v. Branstetter, 29 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2001).
“330, the forfeiture order was based on a different statute, ORS 167.347. That statute provides for forfeiture of animals that have been impounded pending final disposition of a criminal animal-neglect charge, and does not make the forfeiture contingent on the defendant being…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.347(5) — 2 cases
State v. Branstetter, 45 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“See generally ORS 167.347 (permitting impounded animals to be forfeited prior to final disposition of criminal charges under some circumstances).”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 466 P.3d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“The proceeding under ORS 167.347 is not the kind of forfeiture pro- ceeding that existed at the time of the adoption of Article I, section 17, and it does not involve the kinds of determinations that are typically made by a jury.”
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.