72nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2003 Regular Session
 
NOTE:  Matter within  { +  braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within  { -  braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
 { +  braces and plus signs + } .
 
LC 877
 
                         House Bill 2102
 
Ordered printed by the Speaker pursuant to House Rule 12.00A (5).
  Presession filed (at the request of Attorney General Hardy
  Myers for Department of Justice)
 
 
                             SUMMARY
 
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
introduced.
 
  Provides that party moving to suppress evidence seized as
result of warrantless search has burden of proving that moving
party had protected interest in place or thing searched.
 
                        A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to suppression of evidence in criminal prosecutions;
  creating new provisions; and amending ORS 133.693.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
  SECTION 1. ORS 133.693 is amended to read:
  133.693. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of
this section, in any proceeding on a motion to suppress evidence
the moving party   { - shall be entitled to - }  { +  may + }
contest, by cross-examination or offering evidence, the good
faith, accuracy and truthfulness of the affiant with respect to
the evidence presented to establish probable cause for search or
seizure.
  (2) If the evidence sought to be suppressed was seized by
authority of a search warrant, the moving party   { - shall be
allowed to - }  { +  may + } contest the good faith, accuracy and
truthfulness of the affiant as to the evidence presented before
the issuing authority only upon supplementary motion, supported
by affidavit, setting forth substantial basis for questioning
such good faith, accuracy and truthfulness.
  (3) In any proceeding under subsection (2) of this section, the
moving party   { - shall have - }  { +  has + } the burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence
presented before the issuing authority was not offered in good
faith, was not accurate and was not truthful.
  (4)   { - Where - }  { +  When + } the motion to suppress
challenges evidence seized as the result of a warrantless search,
 { + the moving party has + } the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence  { + that the moving party had a
constitutionally protected interest in the place or thing
searched. If the moving party makes that showing, the prosecution
has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that
 + }  { - the validity of - }  the search   { - is on the
prosecution - }  { +  was valid + }.
 
 
  (5) The court shall determine whether, under applicable law,
any inaccuracy, untruthfulness or lack of good faith requires
suppression.
  SECTION 2.  { + The amendments to ORS 133.693 by section 1 of
this 2003 Act apply to seizures of evidence of offenses that are
committed on or after the effective date of this 2003 Act. + }
                         ----------