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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.348 (2026)

Placement of forfeited animal

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

      167.348 Placement of forfeited animal. (1) If an animal is forfeited according to the provisions of ORS 167.347 or 167.350, the agency to which the animal was forfeited may place the animal with a new owner. The agency may give placement preference to any person or persons who had prior contact with the animal, including but not limited to family members and friends of the former owner whom the agency determines are capable of providing necessary, adequate and appropriate levels of care for the animal. The agency may not, however, place the animal with family members or friends of the former owner who aided or abetted the criminal conduct underlying the forfeiture or had knowledge of the criminal conduct and failed to intervene. As a condition of placement, the agency shall require the new owner to execute an agreement to provide minimum care to the animal. The agreement must indicate that allowing the former owner to possess the animal constitutes a crime.

      (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the agency may not place the animal with any person who resides with the former owner. [1995 c.369 §3; 2009 c.273 §1; 2013 c.719 §8]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2018–2022 · leading case: State v. Crow, 429 P.3d 1053 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Crow, 429 P.3d 1053 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “350(2)(b) ; see also ORS 167.348 (if an agency places the forfeited animal with a new owner, "the agency may not place the animal with any person who resides with the former owner," the agency "shall require the new owner to execute an agreement to provide minimum care to the…”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 515 P.3d 899 (Or. 2022). “6 But that statute did not protect agencies from incurring costs in the first instance, and, in some situations, those costs were not 5 ORS 167.348(1) provides that, if an animal is forfeited to an agency under ORS 167.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.348(1) — 1 case
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 515 P.3d 899 (Or. 2022). “6 But that statute did not protect agencies from incurring costs in the first instance, and, in some situations, those costs were not 5 ORS 167.348(1) provides that, if an animal is forfeited to an agency under ORS 167.”
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.