809.390 Period
of revocation; effect; reinstatement; fee. All of the following apply to a person whose driving
privileges have been revoked:
(1) The period of
revocation shall last as long as required for the revocation by law.
(2) During the
period of revocation, the person is not entitled to exercise any driving
privileges in this state or to apply for or receive any driving privileges in
this state except when a person who has been determined to be a habitual
offender is permitted to obtain driving privileges under ORS 807.240.
(3) Upon
expiration of the revocation period, the person must reapply for driving
privileges in the manner established by law and must reestablish the person’s
eligibility for issuance of driving privileges.
(4) The
Department of Transportation may issue new driving privileges to a person
before the expiration of the revocation period if the person is otherwise
entitled to be issued driving privileges and when, with reference to a
conviction upon which the revocation was based, the Governor has pardoned the
person of the crime.
(5) The
department shall not issue any driving privileges in contradiction to this
section.
(6) If the person
fails to surrender to the department any license or driver permit issued as
evidence of driving privileges that are revoked, the person is subject to the
penalty under ORS 809.500.
(7) No
reinstatement of revoked driving privileges will be made by the department
until the fee for reinstatement of revoked driving privileges established under
ORS 807.370 is paid to or waived by the department. The department may waive
the reinstatement fee if the department committed an error in issuing the
revocation. [1983 c.338 §351; 1985 c.16 §165; 1985 c.393 §10; 1985 c.669 §1;
1987 c.801 §8; 2018 c.76 §10]
Notes of Decisions
State v. Hammerton/Walmsley, 886 P.2d 1012 (Or. 1994).
· cites it 6× “390(1) provides that “[t]he period of revocation shall last as long as required for the revocation by law.” In isolation, that statute could be subject to either defendants’ or the state’s interpretation, however, when it is read together with ORS 809.”
State v. Daniels, 862 P.2d 524 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“ORS 809.390(2). Nothing in the motor vehicle statutes provides for a felony charge to be reduced to an infraction after the passage of time, and we will not insert that which has been omitted.”
State v. Gonzales-Acevedo, 383 P.3d 443 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “) See ORS 809.390(2) (during the period of revocation, “the person is not entitled to exercise any driving privileges in this state or to apply for or receive any driving privileges in this state,” except as expressly provided).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.390(1) — 1 case
State v. Hammerton/Walmsley, 886 P.2d 1012 (Or. 1994).
“390(1) provides that “[t]he period of revocation shall last as long as required for the revocation by law.” In isolation, that statute could be subject to either defendants’ or the state’s interpretation, however, when it is read together with ORS 809.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.390(2) — 3 cases
State v. Hammerton/Walmsley, 886 P.2d 1012 (Or. 1994).
“390(1) provides that “[t]he period of revocation shall last as long as required for the revocation by law.” In isolation, that statute could be subject to either defendants’ or the state’s interpretation, however, when it is read together with ORS 809.”
State v. Daniels, 862 P.2d 524 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“ORS 809.390(2). Nothing in the motor vehicle statutes provides for a felony charge to be reduced to an infraction after the passage of time, and we will not insert that which has been omitted.”
State v. Gonzales-Acevedo, 383 P.3d 443 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“) See ORS 809.390(2) (during the period of revocation, “the person is not entitled to exercise any driving privileges in this state or to apply for or receive any driving privileges in this state,” except as expressly provided).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.390(3) — 1 case
State v. Hammerton/Walmsley, 886 P.2d 1012 (Or. 1994).
“390(1) provides that “[t]he period of revocation shall last as long as required for the revocation by law.” In isolation, that statute could be subject to either defendants’ or the state’s interpretation, however, when it is read together with ORS 809.”
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.