676.260 Health
care facility notification of blood alcohol level or presence of cannabis or
controlled substance in blood; content of notice. (1) A health care facility that
provides medical care immediately after a motor vehicle accident to a person
reasonably believed to be the operator of a motor vehicle involved in the
accident shall notify any law enforcement officer who is at the health care
facility and is acting in an official capacity in relation to the motor vehicle
accident if the health care facility becomes aware, as a result of any blood
test performed in the course of that treatment, that:
(a) The person’s
blood alcohol level meets or exceeds the percent specified in ORS 813.010;
(b) The person’s
blood contains cannabis; or
(c) The person’s
blood contains a controlled substance, as defined in ORS 475.005.
(2) If a health
care facility is required to notify a law enforcement officer of test results
under subsection (1) of this section and no law enforcement officer is present
in an official capacity at the health care facility, the health care facility
shall notify a law enforcement agency in the county in which the accident
occurred, or an Oregon State Police dispatch center, as soon as possible but no
more than 72 hours after becoming aware of the results of the blood test.
(3) A notice
required under this section must consist of:
(a) The name of
the person being treated;
(b) The blood
alcohol level, the blood cannabis level and name and level of any controlled
substance disclosed by the test; and
(c) The date and
time of the administration of the test.
(4) ORS 40.225 to
40.295 do not affect the requirement to provide notice imposed by this section,
and the health care facility shall not be considered to have breached any duty
under ORS 40.225 to 40.295 owed to the person about whom the notice is made. [1995
c.546 §1; 2003 c.89 §2; 2007 c.662 §1; 2011 c.672 §1; 2017 c.21 §67]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case:
State v. Miller, 395 P.3d 584 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Miller, 395 P.3d 584 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 14× “ORS 676.260(1) imposes a mandatory reporting duty on health care facilities under certain circumstances.”
State v. Hoffman, 515 P.3d 912 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 15× “Second, he assigns error to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of his blood-alcohol test results (medical blood draw), arguing that the hospital staff’s disclosure of those results in compliance with ORS 676.260 infringed on his Fourth Amendment privacy interests.”
State v. Donahue, 105 Wash. App. 67 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
“Accordingly, the blood test results from the *72 Oregon hospital are admissible because they were lawfully obtained under Oregon law and did not violate the Oregon physician-patient privilege. There was no error based upon the physician-patient privilege.”
State v. Miller (Or. 2026).
“He said that he did not think that he had probable cause to arrest defen- dant at that point and that he would have let defendant “get up and leave” if she had decided to do so.”
State v. Miller, 561 P.3d 675 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The officer had a “normal” interaction with defendant, during 1 ORS 676.260(1)(a) requires a health care facility providing immediate post-motor-vehicle-accident medical care to the presumed driver to notify law enforcement of the result of any blood test performed in the course…”
State v. Kelly, 469 P.3d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“1 ORS 676.260 requires a health care facility providing immediate post- motor-vehicle-accident medical care to the presumed driver to notify any investi- gating law enforcement officer present at the facility of the result of any blood test performed in the course of treatment…”
State v. Moore, 321 Or. App. 28 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “More specifically, he asserts that, under ORS 676.260,1 the hospital staff were statutorily required to disclose the blood test results to police, thereby making the hospital staff state actors.”
Behringer v. City of Ashland (D. Or. 2024).
“300 (authorizing healthcare providers to notify law enforcement if they believe a patient is going to drive while intoxicated and shielding them from liability for making such reports); ORS 676.260 (obliging healthcare providers to report to police the results of blood tests…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 676.260(1) — 3 cases
State v. Miller, 395 P.3d 584 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“ORS 676.260(1) imposes a mandatory reporting duty on health care facilities under certain circumstances.”
State v. Hoffman, 515 P.3d 912 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Second, he assigns error to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of his blood-alcohol test results (medical blood draw), arguing that the hospital staff’s disclosure of those results in compliance with ORS 676.260 infringed on his Fourth Amendment privacy interests.”
State v. Moore, 321 Or. App. 28 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“More specifically, he asserts that, under ORS 676.260,1 the hospital staff were statutorily required to disclose the blood test results to police, thereby making the hospital staff state actors.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 676.260(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Miller, 561 P.3d 675 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The officer had a “normal” interaction with defendant, during 1 ORS 676.260(1)(a) requires a health care facility providing immediate post-motor-vehicle-accident medical care to the presumed driver to notify law enforcement of the result of any blood test performed in the course…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.