Court Opinion

ID: 9633678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:56:28.694375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:39.625983
License: Public Domain

LENT, J.,
concurring.
I concur, but I add this short opinion concerning the definition of “arrest.” See 304 Or at 662-63 n 1.
Prior to the revision of the criminal procedure code by the 1973 legislature, the definition of “arrest” was found in former ORS 133.210:
“Arrest is the taking of a person into custody so that he may be held to answer for a crime.”
Another section, former ORS 133.250, fleshed out the definition as follows:
“An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant or by his submission to the custody of the officer.”
The genesis of these sections is to be found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, General Laws of Oregon, chapter 36, sections 360 and 364, p 504 (Deady 1845-1864), and they were perpetuated through various revisions of the state statutes to and including Oregon Revised Statutes.
There is nothing in those former sections to indicate that they did not apply to the entire set of statutes of this state.
Between the 1971 and 1973 sessions of the legislature, the Criminal Law Revision Commission developed a draft of a revised code of criminal procedure. The Commission’s Final Draft (1972) contained an Article 4 entitled “ARRESTS AND RELATED PROCEDURES.” Section 89 of that article provided:
“As used in this Article, unless the context requires otherwise:
“(1) ‘Arrest’ means to place a person under actual or constructive restraint or to take a person into custody for the purpose of charging him with an offense. A ‘stop’ as authorized under sections 30 to 32 of this Act is not an arrest.”
The commentary explained that the proposed definition of *673“arrest” combined the prior two existing statutes, former ORS 133.210 and 133.250. The commentary does not explain why the definition was limited to use in Article 4.
Legislative action on the Commission’s work resulted in the enactment of Oregon Revised Statutes, chapter 133, entitled: “Arrest and Related Procedures; Search and Seizure; Extradition.” ORS 133.005 was enacted as part of that chapter and provided (as it substantially does now):
“As used in ORS 131.655 and 133.005 to 133.450, unless the context requires otherwise:
“(1) ‘Arrest’ means to place a person under actual or constructive restraint or to take a person into custody for the purpose of charging him with an offense. A ‘stop’ as authorized under ORS 131.605 to 131.625 is not an arrest.”
The sections of chapter 133 relating to “Search and Seizure,” namely, ORS 133.525 to 133.730, are not sections to which the definition in ORS 133.005 is applicable.
I have not made further inquiry into Commission or legislative history to attempt to discover why the definition of “arrest” does not apply to the statutes on search and seizure because no party has raised any issue that requires such inquiry. I note this only to express a caveat to the lead opinion’s use in footnote 1 of only part of ORS 133.005 to express a definition of “arrest.” There may someday be a case in which it is important to note the legislature’s action in limiting the scope of the definition of “arrest.”