ORS 41.910
Certain intercepted communications inadmissible

Evidence of the contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted:


In violation of ORS 165.540 (Obtaining contents of communications) shall not be admissible in any court of this state, except as evidence of unlawful interception or when the evidence was created by the use of a video camera worn upon a law enforcement officer’s person and the officer either substantially complied with or attempted in good faith to comply with ORS 165.540 (Obtaining contents of communications) (5)(d)(B).


Under ORS 165.540 (Obtaining contents of communications) (2)(a) shall not be admissible in any court of this state unless:


The communication was intercepted by a public official in charge of and at a jail, police premises, sheriff’s office, Department of Corrections institution or other penal or correctional institution; and


The participant in the communication, against whom the evidence is being offered, had actual notice that the communication was being monitored or recorded. [1955 c.675 §6; 1959 c.681 §5; 1979 c.716 §12; 1983 c.824 §4; 1993 c.178 §1; 2001 c.385 §5; 2015 c.550 §3]

Source: Section 41.910 — Certain intercepted communications inadmissible, https://www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/bills_laws/ors/ors041.­html.

Notes of Decisions

The defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied where the evidence objected to was not obtained by the exploitation of an illegal eavesdrop conducted by the police. State v. Armstrong, 24 Or App 785, 547 P2d 170 (1976)

Where officer stopped defendant for suspected use of intoxicants and tape recorded all conversation with defendant from time he approached car until shortly after arrest and tape showed officer informed defendant their conversation was being recorded two minutes after they began talking, error in admitting portion of tape recording which occurred before officer informed defendant of its existence was nonprejudicial. State v. Cooney, 36 Or App 217, 584 P2d 329 (1978)

Motion to challenge admissibility of conversation intercepted under ORS 165.540 must be made in writing. State v. Rodriguez, 115 Or App 281, 840 P2d 711 (1992)

Evidence of contents of bodywire recording obtained in compliance with ORS 165.540 is admissible. State v. Casteel, 122 Or App 218, 857 P2d 204 (1993)

ORS 165.540 provision allowing police to obtain certain conversations upon existence of probable cause or exigent circumstances does not make conversations obtained without court order admissible. State v. Fleetwood, 331 Or 511, 16 P3d 503 (2000)

Suppression of contents of intercepted oral communication does not require suppression of contents of same communication obtained by means other than interception. State v. Jones, 339 Or 438, 121 P3d 657 (2005)

Green check means up to date. Up to date