Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.610 (2026)

Confiscation of liquor and property by commission

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

471.610 Confiscation of liquor and property by commission. Whenever any officer arrests any person for violation of the Liquor Control Act, the officer may take into possession all alcoholic liquor and other property which the person so arrested has in possession, or on the premises, which is apparently being used in violation of that statute. If the person so arrested is convicted, and it is found that the liquor and other property has been used in violation of the law, the same shall be forfeited to the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, and shall be delivered by the court or officer to the commission. The commission is authorized to destroy or make such other disposition thereof as it considers to be in the public interest. In any such case, all alcoholic liquor purchased or acquired from any source, and all property, including bars, glasses, mixers, lockers, chairs, tables, cash registers, music devices, gambling devices, furniture, furnishings, equipment and facilities for the mixing, storing, serving or drinking of alcoholic liquor shall be confiscated and forfeited to the state, and the clear proceeds shall be deposited with the State Treasury in the Common School Fund in the manner provided in this section. [Amended by 1981 c.601 §1; 1987 c.858 §5; 2021 c.351 §126]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1966–1980 · leading case: State v. Bettles, 607 P.2d 216 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Bettles, 607 P.2d 216 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “See ORS 471.610. Affirmed. Because of our disposition of this issue we need not address the applicability of State v.”

State v. Gould, 418 P.2d 262 (Or. 1966). “Those named defendants were convicted, and the state moved (orally) under ORS 471.610 for the forfeiture of certain personal property allegedly involved in the illegal transactions.”

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.