ORS 133.545
Issuance of search warrant

  • where executable
  • form of application


A search warrant may be issued only by a judge. A search warrant issued by a judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals may be executed anywhere in the state. Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this section, a search warrant issued by a judge of a circuit court may be executed only within the judicial district in which the court is located. A search warrant issued by a justice of the peace may be executed only within the county in which the justice court is located. A search warrant issued by a municipal judge authorized to exercise the powers and perform the duties of a justice of the peace may be executed only in the municipality in which the court is located.


Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a circuit court judge may authorize execution of a search warrant outside the judicial district in which the court is located, if the judge finds from the application that one or more of the objects of the search relate to an offense committed or triable within the judicial district in which the court is located. If the warrant authorizes the installation or tracking of a mobile tracking device, the officer may track the device in any county to which it is transported.


Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a circuit court judge duly assigned pursuant to ORS 1.615 (Appointment pro tempore to tax court or circuit court) to serve as a judge pro tempore in a circuit court may authorize execution of a search warrant in any judicial district in which the judge serves as judge pro tempore if the application requesting the warrant includes an affidavit showing that a regularly elected or appointed circuit court judge for the judicial district is not available, whether by reason of conflict of interest or other reason, to issue the warrant within a reasonable time.


Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a circuit court judge may authorize execution of a search warrant outside the judicial district in which the court is located if the judge finds that:


The search relates to one of the following offenses involving a victim who was 65 years of age or older at the time of the offense:


Criminal mistreatment in the first degree as described in ORS 163.205 (Criminal mistreatment in the first degree) (1)(b)(D) or (E);


Identity theft;


Aggravated identity theft;


Computer crime;


Fraudulent use of a credit card;


Forgery in any degree;


Criminal possession of a forged instrument in any degree;


Theft in any degree; or


Aggravated theft in the first degree;


The objects of the search consist of financial records; and


The person making application for the search warrant is not able to ascertain at the time of the application the proper place of trial for the offense described in paragraph (a) of this subsection.


Application for a search warrant may be made only by a district attorney, a police officer or a special agent employed under ORS 131.805 (Authority to employ special agents).


The application shall consist of a proposed warrant in conformance with ORS 133.565 (Contents of search warrant), and shall be supported by one or more affidavits particularly setting forth the facts and circumstances tending to show that the objects of the search are in the places, or in the possession of the individuals, to be searched. If an affidavit is based in whole or in part on hearsay, the affiant shall set forth facts bearing on any unnamed informant’s reliability and shall disclose, as far as possible, the means by which the information was obtained.


Instead of the written affidavit described in subsection (6) of this section, the judge may take an oral statement under oath. The oral statement shall be recorded and a copy of the recording submitted to the judge who took the oral statement. In such cases, the judge shall certify that the recording of the sworn oral statement is a true recording of the oral statement under oath and shall retain the recording as part of the record of proceedings for the issuance of the warrant. The recording shall constitute an affidavit for the purposes of this section. The applicant shall retain a copy of the recording and shall provide a copy of the recording to the district attorney if the district attorney is not the applicant.


Intentionally left blank —Ed.


In addition to the procedure set out in subsection (7) of this section, the proposed warrant and the affidavit may be sent to the court by facsimile transmission or any similar electronic transmission that delivers a complete printable image of the signed affidavit and proposed warrant. The affidavit may have a notarized acknowledgment, or the affiant may swear to the affidavit by telephone. If the affiant swears to the affidavit by telephone, the affidavit may be signed electronically. A judge administering an oath telephonically under this subsection must execute a declaration that recites the manner and time of the oath’s administration. The declaration must be filed with the return.


When a court issues a warrant upon an application made under paragraph (a) of this subsection:


The court may transmit the signed warrant to the person making application under subsection (5) of this section by means of facsimile transmission or similar electronic transmission, as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection. The court shall file the original signed warrant and a printed image of the application with the return.


The person making application shall deliver the original signed affidavit to the court with the return. If the affiant swore to the affidavit by telephone, the affiant must so note next to the affiant’s signature on the affidavit. [1973 c.836 §83; 1985 c.344 §1; 1989 c.983 §3; 1995 c.658 §73; 1999 c.56 §1; 2007 c.547 §1; 2009 c.334 §1; 2013 c.155 §11; 2013 c.225 §1; 2015 c.415 §1; 2019 c.399 §7]

Source: Section 133.545 — Issuance of search warrant; where executable; form of application, https://www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/bills_laws/ors/ors133.­html.

See also annotations under ORS 141.030 and 141.040 in permanent edition.

Notes of Decisions

Under former similar statute (ORS 141.100)

The reliability of an informant may be established by the independent corroboration of his information, as well as by a recital that he has previously proven reliable. State v. Thacker, 9 Or App 250, 496 P2d 729 (1972)

In general

Reliability of a hearsay informant is sufficiently established when the informant is a named police officer. State v. Eismann, 21 Or App 92, 533 P2d 1379 (1975)

Where affidavit in support of search warrant application stated that named individual had contacted police officer, magistrate properly inferred that informant initiated crime report to law enforcement agency which, if false, would subject him to punishment under ORS 162.375, as well as to possible liability for malicious prosecution and punishment for perjury if called as witness and thus that informant was credible and information was sufficiently reliable to provide proper basis for search warrant issuance. State v. Montigue, 288 Or 359, 605 P2d 656 (1980)

Where affidavit supporting search warrant identified police informant, contained admissions of criminal involvement that related to object of search warrant and police partially corroborated informant’s information, sufficient basis existed for finding of probable cause to issue search warrant. State v. Carlile/Reiter/Shaw, 290 Or 161, 619 P2d 1280 (1980); State v. Evans, 110 Or App 46, 822 P2d 1198 (1991)

Where affidavit included only name of informant and informant’s admission against her penal interest with no police corroboration of information, circumstances were not sufficient to support finding of probable cause to issue search warrant. State v. Carlile/Reiter/Shaw, 290 Or 161, 619 P2d 1280 (1980)

Affidavit of police officer which merely recited facts related to him by unnamed informant and did not set forth any facts tending to establish informant’s credibility was insufficient, under this section, to support a search warrant. State v. Russell, 293 Or 469, 650 P2d 79 (1982)

Affidavit in support of search warrant was sufficient to establish probable cause that opium would be found on premises as alleged, though affidavit did not describe informant’s familiarity with opium in particular; lapse of time that will render information stale depends on facts of each case. State v. Horwedel, 66 Or App 400, 674 P2d 623 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Informant’s cooperation in “controlled buy” was persuasive evidence of reliability. State v. Middleton, 73 Or App 592, 700 P2d 309 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Where affidavit provided no information bearing on unnamed informant’s reliability or means by which informant obtained information, search warrant was invalid and evidence seized pursuant to it must be suppressed. State v. Smith, 73 Or App 800, 700 P2d 311 (1985); State v. Cotter/Ray, 125 Or App 210, 864 P2d 875 (1993)

When corroboration by police investigation or by named co-informant can establish reliability of unnamed informant, search warrant affidavit relying in part on information provided by unnamed informant is sufficient. State v. Souders, 74 Or App 123, 700 P2d 1050 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Affidavit in support of search warrant was sufficient where informant who supplied information to police officer personally observed marijuana growing in defendant’s home and informant’s veracity was established by successful completion of polygraph test and lack of any criminal record. State v. Fink, 79 Or App 590, 720 P2d 372 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Where critical information contained in search warrant affidavit was derived solely from conclusory statements and others for which informant’s source of knowledge was not shown and which were not sufficiently detailed to infer that they were based on informant’s personal observations rather than hearsay or speculation, order suppressing evidence seized was proper. State v. Hall, 79 Or App 597, 720 P2d 376 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Where informant was named in search warrant and his information corroborated, informant was subject to liability for malicious prosecution if his report was untrue, he could be called as witness and subject to penalties for perjury and he was subject to liability for false police report and such factors could be considered in determining his veracity. State v. Fitzpatrick, 81 Or App 592, 726 P2d 950 (1986)

Search warrant affidavit stating that informant identified defendant as seller of controlled substances, that informant had purchased controlled substances from defendant, that informant had participated in controlled buy under surveillance of affiant and that informant had participated in controlled buy on previous occasion and had turned contraband over to police was sufficient to establish informant’s credibility. State v. Wilson/Helms, 83 Or App 616, 733 P2d 54 (1987)

Where informant’s information was based on personal observation, information was “cross-corroborated” among informants, informants were citizens unconnected with crime or criminal milieu, and many of facts were corroborated by police observation, magistrate could properly find that informants were credible and information reliable. State v. Prince, 93 Or App 106, 760 P2d 1356 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

Reliability of information supplied by informant twice removed from affiant was sufficient to establish probable cause for search warrant. State v. Alvarez, 93 Or App 714, 763 P2d 1204 (1988), aff’d 308 Or 143, 776 P2d 1283 (1990)

If affidavit is sufficient under this section, affidavit also satisfies standards under Oregon and United States Constitutions. State v. Coffey, 94 Or App 94, 764 P2d 605 (1988), aff’d 309 Or 342, 788 P2d 424 (1990)

Reliability of informant’s information was sufficiently established through corroboration by officer’s investigation. State v. Brust, 94 Or App 416, 765 P2d 1246 (1988)

Where defendant appeals conviction for manufacture and possession of controlled substance, and argues that information supplied by anonymous informant must be disregarded, affidavit is sufficient to show basis of knowledge for information because defendant told anonymous informant that he grew marijuana in large barn on his property. State v. Nuttall, 97 Or App 285, 776 P2d 26 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Absent evidence as to availability of telephonic warrant, where passage of time would make “mothering test” less indicative of theft, search and seizure were permitted without warrant. State v. Lovell, 99 Or App 672, 783 P2d 1040 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Affidavit accompanying search warrant supported conclusion that unnamed informant was speaking truth upon stating that he or she had bought cocaine inside residence and that cocaine remained in that location. State v. Alvarez, 308 Or 143, 776 P2d 1283 (1989)

Two-pronged Aguilar/Spinelli standard set forth in this section applies only to affidavits based on hearsay statements of unnamed informant not to information supplied by named informants. State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 786 P2d 161 (1990)

This section does not require original affidavit to be part of application for search warrant and photocopy of original signed affidavit suffices. State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 786 P2d 161 (1990)

Polygraph examiner’s opinion, in combination with other facts presented in affidavit, establish probable cause for a search warrant. State v. Coffey, 309 Or 342, 788 P2d 424 (1990)

Affidavit in support of warrant was sufficient where affidavit reflected that informant obtained information by personal observation and that informant was credible on basis of information previously supplied to police. State v. Shutvet, 105 Or App 97, 803 P2d 287 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Search warrant affidavit, stripped of inaccuracies and information obtained in purportedly unlawful searches, was insufficient to establish probable cause. State v. Morrison/Bartee, 107 Or App 343, 812 P2d 832 (1991), as modified by 108 Or App 766, 816 P2d 1217 (1991); State v. Gunderson, 109 Or App 621, 820 P2d 871 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Requirement that application be by district attorney or police officer was complied with where police assisted in preparation of affidavit by private citizen, who was then presented to magistrate along with affidavit by officer. State v. Ferris, 108 Or App 81, 813 P2d 1123 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Where informant is offering hearsay, information derived from hearsay must be analyzed under common law test to determine if, under totality of circumstances disclosed in affidavit, information is sufficiently reliable to support issuance of search warrant. State v. Young, 108 Or App 196, 816 P2d 612 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Issuance of warrant was justified when trained and experienced officers smelled strong odor coming from defendant’s residence that officers associated with manufacture of methamphetamine. State v. Brown, 109 Or App 636, 820 P2d 878 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Legal boundary or property line specified in warrant did not circumscribe officers’ authority to search trailer located only 40 or 50 feet from premises when trailer reasonably appeared associated with premises and was specifically described in warrant. State v. Brown, 109 Or App 636, 820 P2d 878 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Where authorizing magistrate after issuing telephonic warrant did not certify transcript of oral affidavit, sign and file original warrant or testify at suppression hearing, there was no evidence to support finding by trial court that transcription accurately represented underlying oral affidavit under oath and warrant was therefore invalid. State v. Evans, 110 Or App 46, 822 P2d 1198 (1991)

Statement in affidavit submitted in May that affiant had previously presented affidavit to court in April and incorporation by reference and physical attachment of April affidavit are sufficient to satisfy requirement of this section for supporting affidavit, even though April affidavit was not separately sworn to or signed. State v. Moore, 113 Or App 66, 831 P2d 70 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Unnamed person in affidavit who gives information to confidential reliable informant is “informant” within meaning of this section. State v. Worsham, 114 Or App 170, 834 P2d 1033 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Unnamed informant’s statements to confidential reliable informant that he had purchased more than one ounce of marijuana at particular residence on prior occasions and intended to return and purchase more were statements against penal interest that demonstrated unnamed informant’s basis of information for affidavit establishing probable cause to believe marijuana would be found in residence. State v. Worsham, 114 Or App 170, 834 P2d 1033 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Affidavit contained information from business records that corroborated evidence to allow magistrate to conclude that unnamed informants were reliable. State v. Hoffer, 114 Or App 508, 835 P2d 959 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Where affidavit supporting search warrant included observations about marijuana growing operation, warrant issued two months after observation was sufficiently supported by probable cause that evidence of marijuana growing operation would be at defendant’s residence. State v. Bice, 115 Or App 482, 839 P2d 244 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Oregon law requiring issuing judge to certify transcribing statement for telephonic search warrant issued pursuant to oral affidavit does not prescribe time limits for transcription, so delay between issuance and certification does not require suppression. U.S. v. Nance, 962 F2d 860 (1992)

In determining sufficiency of affidavit, court could consider information about other persons and places if information tended to show likelihood object of search would be found in defendant’s residence. State v. Chezem, 125 Or App 341, 865 P2d 1307 (1993)

Corroboration of incidental information, while not helpful in establishing probable cause, demonstrated reliability of informant and was relevant to establishing informant veracity. State v. Chezem, 125 Or App 341, 865 P2d 1307 (1993)

In determining whether information of crime is too stale to support warrant, likelihood that criminal activity is ongoing in nature can outweigh passage of time since event described in affidavit. State v. Chezem, 125 Or App 341, 865 P2d 1307 (1993)

Magistrate is not required to make express findings of fact when issuing out-of-district warrant. State v. Chamu-Hernandez, 229 Or App 334, 212 P3d 514 (2009), Sup Ct review denied

Attorney General Opinions

In general

Search and seizure by inspectors and investigators of Oregon Liquor Control Commission, (1974) Vol 36, p 1066

Law Review Citations

In general

53 OLR 416 (1974); 68 OLR 267, 726 (1989)

Definitions for ORS 133.005 to 133.400 and 133.410 to 133.450
Sufficiency of information or complaint
Contents of information or complaint
Magistrate defined
Who are magistrates
Peace officer
Ex parte emergency protective orders
Criminal citation
Cited person to appear before magistrate
Service of criminal citation
Criminal citations generally
Contents of criminal citation issued without complaint
Contents of criminal citation issued with complaint
Criminal citation where arrest without warrant is authorized for ordinance violation
Electronic filing of criminal citation
Failure to appear on criminal citation
Authority to issue warrant
Content and form of warrant
Who may make arrest
Arrest by private person
Arrest by peace officer
Arrest by parole and probation officer
Arrest by federal officer
Authority of peace officer to arrest without warrant
Liability of peace officer making arrest
Providing false foreign restraining order
Authority to order arrest for crime committed in presence of magistrate
Arrests on warrant or order transmitted by telegraph
Definitions for ORS 133.375 to 133.381
Arrest of persons for cruelty to animals
Duty of peace officer to arrest and prosecute violators of cruelty to animals laws
Procedure in arrests for violation of certain restraining orders
Recording of custodial interviews of adults
Recording of custodial interviews of juveniles
Voluntariness of statement by juvenile during custodial interview
Definitions for ORS 133.405 to 133.408
Immunities and liabilities
Application of ORS 133.405 and 133.407
Short title
Definitions for ORS 133.410 to 133.440
Authority to make arrest in fresh pursuit
Proceedings following arrest in fresh pursuit
Return of arrest warrant
Receipts for property taken from person in custody
Forfeiture of conveyances used unlawfully to conceal or transport stolen property
Seizure of stolen animals or other property being transported
Sale of seized property
Notice to owner
Perishable property
Retention of property to answer order of court
Interpreter to be made available to person with a disability
Duty of peace officer to request emergency medical services
Definitions for ORS 133.525 to 133.703
Permissible objects of search and seizure
Protection of things seized
Obtaining information from portable electronic devices
Issuance of search warrant
Contents of search warrant
Execution of warrant
List of things seized
Use of force in executing warrants
Return of the warrant
“Mobile tracking device” defined
Execution of warrant authorizing mobile tracking device
Medical procedures
Handling and disposition of things seized
Motion for return or restoration of things seized
Ground for motion for return or restoration of things seized
Postponement of return or restoration
Disputed possession rights
Motions to suppress evidence
Challenge to truth of evidence
Identity of informants
Definitions for ORS 133.705 to 133.717
Custodian’s obligation to preserve biological evidence
Notice of intent to dispose
Provision of notice or order to defendant
Definitions for ORS 41.910 and 133.721 to 133.739
Records confidential
Order for interception of communications
Interception of oral communication without order
Proceeding under expired order prohibited
Recording intercepted communications
Procedure for introduction as evidence
Suppression of intercepted communications
Suppression of intercepted oral communication
Disclosure and use of intercepted communications
Civil damages for willful interception, disclosure or use of communications
Law enforcement agency policies and procedures regarding video and audio recordings
Definitions for ORS 133.743 to 133.857
Determination of security requirements to carry out extradition
Fugitives from other states
Form of demand
Investigation of demand and report
Facts documents must show
Extradition of person not present in demanding state at time of commission of crime
Governor’s warrant of arrest
Execution of the warrant
Authority of arresting officer to command assistance
Rights of arrested person
Penalty for disobedience to ORS 133.787
Confinement of prisoner
Arrest prior to requisition
Arrest without warrant
Commitment to await arrest on requisition
Proceedings in absence of arrest under executive warrant within specified time
Persons under criminal prosecution in this state at time of requisition
When guilt of accused may be inquired into
Governor may recall warrant
Warrant to agent to return fugitive from this state
Application for requisition
Extradition of persons imprisoned or awaiting trial in another state or who have left the demanding state under compulsion
Appointment of agent to return fugitive from this state who waives extradition
Immunity from civil process in certain civil cases
Written waiver of extradition proceedings
Nonwaiver by this state
Trial of extradited person for other crimes
Construction of Act
Short title
Payment of agent’s expenses
Arrest and Return Account
Release of booking photo by law enforcement agency
Removal of booking photo from publication or website
Green check means up to date. Up to date