Execution of warrant
Source:
Section 133.575 — Execution of warrant, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors133.html.
See also annotations under ORS 141.020, 141.090 and 141.110 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute (ORS 141.110)
Whether exigent circumstances exist depends on whether complying with knock and announce provision would run contrary to provision’s goal of protecting officers and avoiding unnecessary destruction of evidence. State v. Mitchell, 6 Or App 378, 487 P2d 1156 (1971), Sup Ct review denied
Evidence secured by an entry not in compliance with this section shall not be excluded. State v. Valentine, 264 Or 54, 504 P2d 84 (1972), cert. denied, 412 US 948
In general
This section does not permit officers executing warrant to take any steps, other than those authorized in warrant, to determine who was in control of premises to be searched beyond those they could take without warrant. State v. Ohling, 70 Or App 249, 688 P2d 1384 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Magistrate has no authority to abrogate required procedures for executing warrant, including “knock-and-announce” requirement of this section. State v. Arce, 83 Or App 185, 730 P2d 1260 (1986), Sup Ct review denied
Where police officers complied with requirements of this section and knocked at outer door before prying it open, they were not required to knock and announce before entering each inner door. United States v. Johnson, 643 F Sup 1465 (1986)
Where police officers gave notice of their identity, authority and purpose, paused to allow occupants few seconds to prepare for entry and then entered premises, officers did not violate knock and announce statute and trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. State v. Stalbert, 99 Or App 582, 783 P2d 1005 (1989)
Where officer’s belief of danger attendant with entry of defendant’s residence was based on information of possible narcotics involvement or weapons and on report that owner of residence was member of “outlaw” motorcycle gang, officers had reasonable apprehension of peril and were not required to knock and announce before entering to execute search warrant. State v. Schultz, 109 Or App 407, 819 P2d 762 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
State has burden to prove it has complied with “appropriate notice” requirement of this section. State v. Schultz, 109 Or App 407, 819 P2d 762 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
Where occupants of house could see officers approaching and officers opened screen door, did not break down door or injure anyone, violation of this section did not require suppression of evidence seized in search. State v. Arnold, 115 Or App 258, 838 P2d 74 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Where occupants of property were aware of identity, authority and purpose of police officers serving search warrant, notice was appropriate and officers were not required to wait before entering. State v. Bost, 317 Or 538, 857 P2d 132 (1993)
Failure to wait for arrival of warrant was not aggravated error where evidence was subject to rapid dissipation and distance prevented prompt delivery of copy. State v. Blasingame, 127 Or App 382, 873 P2d 361 (1994), 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
Under former similar statute (ORS 141.110)
8 WLJ 107-114, 224-228 (1972); 10 WLJ 62 (1973)
Up to date