(1)
Evidence of or information concerning the commission of a criminal offense;(2)
Contraband, the fruits of crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed;(3)
Property that has been used, or is possessed for the purpose of being used, to commit or conceal the commission of an offense; and(4)
A person for whose arrest there is probable cause or who is unlawfully held in concealment. [1973 c.836 §82]Source:Section 133.535 — Permissible objects of search and seizure, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors133.html.
See also annotations under ORS 141.010 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
Discovery by one police officer of defendant’s personal property in the same room with illegal narcotics, unknown to another officer, did not constitute probable cause for that other officer to arrest and search defendant. State v. Mickelson, 18 Or App 647, 526 P2d 583 (1974), Sup Ct review denied
Probable cause that crime of ex-convict in possession of concealable weapon was being committed by defendant, together with exigent circ*mstances including lateness of hour and fact that defendant was not in custody, justified warrantless search of defendant’s automobile. State v. Wright, 30 Or App 11, 566 P2d 185 (1977)
Absent reasonable possibility of loss of evidence, oral consent to police officers to enter living room of residence did not justify subsequent warrantless search of remainder of house conducted for purpose of “securing the residence.” State v. Drouhard, 31 Or App 1083, 572 P2d 331 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant entered house in process of being searched, officers took defendant to kitchen, advised him of rights, “patted him down” and took his money and car keys, and using keys, entered trunk of defendant’s automobile outside house and seized briefcase found within, officers could seize, as distinguished from search, briefcase, but could not constitutionally search briefcase without warrant. State v. Groda, 285 Or 321, 591 P2d 1354 (1979)
There is no constitutional requirement that police officers who hold valid arrest warrant and have probable cause to believe subject is located on private premises must also obtain search warrant before they may enter premises to execute arrest warrant. State v. Jordan, 288 Or 391, 605 P2d 464 (1980); State v. Davis, 313 Or 246, 834 P2d 1008 (1992)
Authority to search for person for whose arrest there is probable cause, does not authorize search for persons who cannot be arrested. State v. DeKuyper, 74 Or App 534, 703 P2d 261 (1985)
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)
Where magistrate issued warrant to search motor vehicle for evidence that it had been unlawfully registered, an infraction, warrant was valid because vehicle was property which probably was used to commit or conceal offense within meaning of this section. State v. Weist, 302 Or 370, 730 P2d 26 (1986)
Where officer observed paperfolds suspected of containing controlled substance in plain view during street encounter, officer had probable cause to arrest defendant. State v. Shelton, 103 Or App 179, 796 P2d 390 (1990), as modified by 105 Or App 570, 805 P2d 698 (1991)
Evidence of crimes committed against police officers, during what turns out to be illegal entry, may not be suppressed. State v. Janicke, 103 Or App 227, 796 P2d 392 (1990)
Negative record check is not probable cause for officer to search defendant’s purse, and search cannot be justified as incident to arrest for failure to display operator’s license. State v. Scarborough, 103 Or App 231, 796 P2d 394 (1990)
Search incident to arrest for driving while suspended can justify removal of box from defendant’s pocket, but without suggestion that box contains evidence of crime for which defendant was arrested, opening box and inspecting contents is unlawful. State v. Jones, 103 Or App 316, 797 P2d 385 (1990)
Search warrants limited to items relating to specific crime did not grant police carte blanche to search for any evidence and seize anything they encountered so warrants were sufficient. State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 786 P2d 161 (1990)
Where affidavits did not indicate that defendant resided at property, did not establish that defendant conducted any activities related to marijuana growing operation at property or did not link property with remote growing operation, there was not probable cause to believe search would lead to discovery of evidence of growing operation. State v. Stockton, 120 Or App 111, 852 P2d 227 (1993)
