Chapter 809
809.210
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
Under former similar statute
Limited
driving order not to supersede a suspension, (1976) Vol
38, p 172
809.235
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS
809.410)
License
revocation is remedial measure not constituting punishment for underlying
offense. Mannelin v. DMV, 176 Or App 9, 31 P3d 438
(2001), aff’d 336 Or 147, 82 P3d 162 (2003)
In general
License
revocation is remedial measure not constituting punishment for underlying
offense. State v. Vazquez-Escobar, 211 Or App 115, 153 P3d 168 (2007), Sup Ct review
denied
Permanent
revocation of driving privileges of person convicted of felony while driving
under influence of intoxicants or of multiple driving under influence of
intoxicants offenses applies to person convicted of felony or offenses while
operating bicycle under influence of intoxicants. State v. Abbey, 239 Or App
306, 245 P3d 152 (2010), Sup Ct review denied
Driving
under influence of intoxicants conviction under law in effect prior to 1986
adoption of current vehicle code counts as predicate offense for purposes of
permanently revoking person’s driving privileges. State v. Kellar,
349 Or 626, 247 P3d 1232 (2011)
809.250
See
annotations under ORS 809.275.
809.260
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute
Phrase
“17 years of age or younger” is unambiguous, and applies to defendant, who has
passed his 17th birthday but not yet reached his 18th. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. White, 83 Or App 225, 730 P2d 1279
(1986), Sup Ct review denied
Provisions
of this section that persons over age of 13 and under 17 years old who are
convicted of being minor in possession of alcohol shall have driving privileges
denied does not violate Oregon Constitution, Article I, section 20 or Article
I, section 16. State v. Day, 84 Or App 291, 733 P2d 937 (1987), Sup Ct review
denied
809.270
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
Under former similar statute
Limited
driving order not to supersede a suspension, (1976) Vol
38, p 172
809.275
(formerly
809.250)
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Absence
in judgment of condition of probation that is required by statute and is
included in court order sent to Department of Motor Vehicles is considered
clerical error in judgment and judgment must be corrected on remand by trial
court, but statute does not conflict with Interstate License Compact, ORS
802.540, and Oregon court may confiscate out-of-state driver license although
court has no authority to suspend driving privileges in another state. State v.
Scott, 96 Or App 451, 773 P2d 394 (1989)
809.310
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute
Where
petitioner misused another’s driver license, Motor Vehicles Division had no
authority to cancel her license under this section because “permitting misuse”
does not include misusing another’s license. Wester
v. MVD, 82 Or App 641, 728 P2d 953 (1986)
In general
Alleged
violations of Article I, section 9 of Oregon Constitution or Fourth Amendment
of U.S. Constitution are outside scope of hearing regarding cancellation of
driving privileges under this section. Merrifield v. MVD, 106 Or App 359, 807
P2d 329 (1991)
809.380
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS
486.211)
Where
operator license was suspended and suspension was later held invalid, operator
remained responsible for failure to comply with suspension terms while
suspension was in effect. State v. Day, 40 Or App 235, 594 P2d 1285 (1979), Sup
Ct review denied
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS
486.211)
Distinctions
between license suspension and revocation, (1976) Vol
38, p 257
809.390
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS
486.211)
Distinctions
between license suspension and revocation, (1976) Vol
38, p 257
809.409
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS
809.410)
Where
court uses statutory authority to reduce conviction for felony vehicular
offense to misdemeanor judgment, conviction is not “felony conviction” for
purposes of revocation. State v. Rodarte, 178 Or App
173, 35 P3d 1116 (2001)
809.410
NOTE:
Repealed as of January 1, 2004
See
annotations under ORS 809.235, 809.409 and 809.419.
809.411
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS
486.211)
Mandatory
suspension unaffected by issuance of a limited driving order, (1976) Vol 38, p 172
809.419
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS
809.410)
29
WLR 829 (1993)
809.420
See
annotations under ORS 809.428.
809.428
(formerly
809.420)
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Where
defendant had no prior conviction when citation for driving under influence of
intoxicants was issued, court erred in imposing three-year suspension of his
driver license. State v. Oeleis, 100 Or App 590, 786
P2d 1322 (1990)
809.430
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute
Where
defendant had not taken delivery of any written notices of suspension of
license sent to him, evidence of defendant’s prior driving convictions was
admissible for purpose of proving defendant’s knowledge that his license was
suspended. State v. Hetland, 31 Or App 529, 570 P2d
1201 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Evidence
that Division followed required procedure for notifying defendant of suspension
was sufficient to support finding that defendant had received notice. State v. Gartzke, 35 Or App 151, 580 P2d 1062 (1978)
Notification
that certified mail is at post office is notice of suspension. State v. DeMello, 300 Or 590, 716 P2d 732 (1986)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
Under former similar statute
Receipt
of notice not relevant to sufficiency of service, (1976) Vol
38, p 164
809.440
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Lack of Department
of Transportation discretion regarding imposition of mandatory suspension or
mandatory suspension lengths, (2007) Vol. 50, No. 8284
809.450
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Motor
Vehicles Division erred in not rescinding petitioner’s suspension under this
section because MVD’s finding that petitioner did not reasonably nor in good
faith believe that he was in compliance with financial responsibility
requirements was not supported by substantial evidence. Applebee v. MVD, 98 Or
App 299, 778 P2d 995 (1989)
Absent
receipt of contrary information, receipt of insurance identification card
showing coverage period was grounds for good faith belief that use was covered.
Grasle v. MVD, 127 Or App 618, 873 P2d 1114 (1994)
809.600 to 809.660
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute
Dismissal
of previous complaint alleging defendant was habitual traffic offender barred
second complaint alleging same cause of action where court has signed order
which adjudged defendant was not habitual traffic offender. State ex rel MVD v. Henigan, 37 Or App
135, 586 P2d 395 (1978)
Neither
Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution or the Sixth Amendment to the
United States Constitution require appointment of counsel for indigent
defendants in habitual traffic offender proceedings. State v. Rhoades, 54 Or
App 254, 634 P2d 806 (1981), Sup Ct review denied
There
is no limitation period for proceedings under the Habitual Traffic Offenders
Act. State v. Renteria, 59 Or App 619, 651 P2d 1362
(1982)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
Under former similar statute
Convictions
prior to 1973 Habitual Traffic Offenders Act, (1974) Vol
36, p 859
809.600
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute
The
defendant was an habitual offender under the Habitual Traffic Offenders Act
where the municipal court forfeited the defendant’s bail on a reckless driving
charge and such forfeiture was for a third specified statutory offense within a
five-year period. State v. Gaskey, 24 Or App 1, 544
P2d 182 (1976)
The
three-convictions requirement of this section is not satisfied by multiple
convictions arising from less than three accidents. State v. Zook, 27 Or App 543, 556 P2d 989 (1976)
Violation
of 55 miles per hour maximum speed limit may be considered in determining
whether individual is habitual traffic offender. State v. Stehle,
33 Or App 115, 575 P2d 994 (1978)
Reference
in this section to prior convictions for driving under influence of intoxicants
or with .10 percent or more blood alcohol content includes convictions under
former similar statutes. State v. Branstetter, 42 Or
App 109, 600 P2d 431 (1979), Sup Ct review denied
Where
defendant had been convicted of driving under influence of alcohol in
California, driving under influence of intoxicants in Oregon, and reckless
driving in California, but where, after he was charged with being habitual
traffic offender, his California conviction of reckless driving was amended to
conviction of failure to drive on right side of roadway, defendant had not been
convicted of three traffic offenses required to make him habitual traffic
offender within meaning of this section. State v. Carter, 45 Or App 301, 608
P2d 570 (1980)
In general
Defendant
could collaterally attack two felony driving while suspended convictions in
proceedings seeking habitual traffic offender (HTO) order. State v. Hardt, 81 Or App 607, 726 P2d 953 (1986), on
reconsideration 83 Or App 221, 730 P2d 1278 (1986), Sup Ct review denied
809.640
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Where
Motor Vehicles Division revoked defendant’s driving privileges under habitual
offender statute, notice of revocation failed to convey to defendant
information required by statute, namely, date that revocation would take effect
unless defendant acted to request hearing and, thus, conviction was based on
inadequate notice of revocation. State v. Atkinson, 305 Or 295, 751 P2d 784
(1988)
This
section limits agency to determining only whether there was error in compiling
conviction shown in driving record supporting revocation order and does not
allow consideration of validity of underlying DUII conviction. Moore v. MVD,
109 Or App 195, 818 P2d 974 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
809.650
NOTES OF DECISIONS
License
revocation of habitual offender continues in effect after specified minimum
time until driver applies for and receives restoration. State v. Stanfill, 166 Or App 104, 997 P2d 297 (2000)
809.660
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute
License
revocation of habitual offender continues in effect after specified minimum
time until driver applies for and receives restoration. State v. Daniels, 320
Or 466, 886 P2d 1019 (1994)
In general
License
revocation of habitual offender continues in effect after specified minimum
time until driver applies for and receives restoration. State v. Stanfill, 166 Or App 104, 997 P2d 297 (2000)