ORS 133.673
Motions to suppress evidence


(1)

Objections to use in evidence of things seized in violation of any of the provisions of ORS 133.525 (Definitions for ORS 133.525 to 133.703) to 133.703 (Identity of informants) shall be made by a motion to suppress which shall be heard and determined by any department of the trial court in advance of trial.

(2)

A motion to suppress which has been denied may be renewed, in the discretion of the court, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, or as the interests of justice require. [1973 c.836 §114; 1975 c.197 §1]

See also annotations under ORS 141.150 in permanent edition.

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 141.150)

The burden of showing falsity as to any material fact in the affidavit is on the defendant. State v. Wright, 11 Or App 560, 503 P2d 514 (1972), aff’d 266 Or 163, 511 P2d 1223 (1973)

Defendant was required to state by affidavit those facts actually known to him which formed a substantial basis for controverting the affidavit for a search warrant before being privileged to invoke the procedure provided by the statute. State v. Wright, 266 Or 163, 511 P2d 1223 (1973)

A motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search, stating that the search was warrantless, is sufficient to place the burden of proving the reasonableness of the search on the state. State v. Miller, 269 Or 328, 524 P2d 1399 (1974)

In General

This section does not change the rule that failure to furnish the list of things seized required by ORS 133.723 is not ground for suppression of evidence. State v. Fitzgerald, 19 Or App 860, 530 P2d 553 (1974)

In a case where a motion to suppress raises more than one contention and the trial court is persuaded to grant the motion on one or more of the grounds raised, then the court must state the basis of its decision. State v. Johnson/Imel, 16 Or App 560, 519 P2d 1053 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

A motion to suppress should be as reasonably specific as possible under the circumstances in order to give the state as much notice as possible of the contentions it must be prepared to meet at the suppression hearing, and at least as much specificity should be required in a motion to suppress as is required in an oral objection made during the course of a trial. State v. Johnson/Imel, 16 Or App 560, 519 P2d 1053 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Trial court was within its discretion in limiting defendant to written motion to suppress without oral argument. State v. Gholston, 55 Or App 790, 639 P2d 1302 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendants were represented by same lawyer who filed motion to suppress, which was denied, and defendants then hired separate lawyers who also filed motion to suppress, trial court did not abuse discretion by refusing to rehear motion. State v. Farkes, 71 Or App 155, 691 P2d 489 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Pretrial motions to suppress evidence seized unlawfully are not answered initially by reference to federal or state constitution, but are regulated by statute. State v. Harp, 299 Or 1, 697 P2d 548 (1985)

Court did not have authority to refuse to consider merits of defendant’s motion to suppress based upon her earlier failure to appear for hearing on motion. State v. Desirey, 99 Or App 283, 782 P2d 429 (1989)

Where pretrial ruling is made on motion to suppress, failure to pursue discretionary relitigation of issue at trial does not render claim of error on pretrial ruling unpreserved. State v. Cole, 323 Or 30, 912 P2d 907 (1996)

Law Review Citations

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 141.150)

7 WLJ 450-468 (1971)

In General

54 OLR 411 (1975)

§§ 133.525 to 133.703

Notes of Decisions

Infractions are “criminal” and search warrant may issue for their investigation. State v. Weist, 79 Or App 435, 720 P2d 753 (1986), aff’d 302 Or 379, 730 P2d 25 (1986)

Law Review Citations

52 OLR 139-154 (1973)


Source
Last accessed
May. 15, 2020