Arrest and Related Procedures

ORS 133.140
Content and form of warrant

A warrant of arrest shall:


Be in writing;


Specify the name of the person to be arrested, or if the name is unknown, shall designate the person by any name or description by which the person can be identified with reasonable certainty;


State the nature of the crime;


State the date when issued and the county or city where issued;


Be in the name of the State of Oregon or the city where issued, be signed by and bear the title of the office of the magistrate having authority to issue a warrant for the crime charged;


Command any peace officer, or any parole and probation officer for a person who is being supervised by the Department of Corrections or a county community corrections agency, to arrest the person for whom the warrant was issued and to bring the person before the magistrate issuing the warrant, or if the magistrate is absent or unable to act, before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the same county;


Specify that the arresting officer may enter premises, in which the officer has probable cause to believe the person to be arrested to be present, without giving notice of the officer’s authority and purpose, if the issuing judge has approved a request for such special authorization; and


Specify the amount of security for release. [Amended by 1961 c.443 §1; 1973 c.836 §70; 1977 c.746 §3; 1983 c.661 §6; 2005 c.668 §3]

See also annotations under ORS 133.130 in permanent edition.

Notes of Decisions

Warrant, authorizing officers to seize business records "pertaining to ownership" of theater alleged to be showplace of obscene films, described items to be seized with sufficient particularity. State v. Tidyman, 30 Or App 537, 568 P2d 666 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

7 WLJ 456 (1971); 59 OLR 327 (1980)

§§ 133.110 to 133.140

Notes of Decisions

Where plaintiff was mistakenly arrested following computer retrieval of identifying and locator data for an individual of similar name, demurrer as to 3 of defendants was properly sustained because plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts from which duty to plaintiff could be discerned and summary judgment as to 2 of defendants was improperly allowed because affidavits did not reveal whether defendants' acts were discretionary or ministerial. Murphy v. City of Portland, 36 Or App 745, 585 P2d 732 (1978)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021