809.600 Kinds
of offenses and number of convictions. This
section establishes the kinds of offenses and the number of convictions
necessary to revoke the driving privileges of a person as a habitual offender
under ORS 809.640. The kinds of offenses and the number of convictions
necessary to revoke driving privileges as a habitual offender are as follows:
(1) A person’s
driving privileges shall be revoked as a habitual offender if the person,
within a five-year period, has been convicted of three or more of any one or
more of the following offenses as evidenced by the records maintained by the
Department of Transportation or by the records of a similar agency of another
state:
(a) Any degree of
murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, assault, recklessly
endangering another person, menacing or criminal mischief resulting from the
operation of a motor vehicle.
(b) Driving while
under the influence of intoxicants under ORS 813.010.
(c) Criminally
driving a motor vehicle while suspended or revoked, under ORS 811.182.
(d) Reckless
driving under ORS 811.140.
(e) Failure to
perform the duties of a driver under ORS 811.700 or 811.705.
(f) Fleeing or
attempting to elude a police officer under ORS 811.540.
(g) Aggravated
vehicular homicide under ORS 163.149 or aggravated driving while suspended or
revoked under ORS 163.196.
(2) A person’s
driving privileges shall be revoked as a habitual offender if the person,
within a five-year period, has been convicted of 20 or more of any one or more
of the following offenses as evidenced by the records maintained by the
department or by a similar agency of another state:
(a) Any offenses
enumerated in subsection (1) of this section.
(b) Any offense
specified in the rules of the department adopted under ORS 809.605.
(3) A person’s
driving privileges shall not be revoked under subsection (2) of this section
until the person’s 21st conviction within a five-year period when the 20th
conviction occurs after a lapse of two years or more from the last preceding
conviction.
(4) The offenses
described under this section include any of the following:
(a) Any violation
of a traffic ordinance of a city, municipal or quasi-municipal corporation that
substantially conforms to offenses described under this section.
(b) Any violation
of offenses under any federal law or any law of another state, including
subdivisions thereof, that substantially conform to offenses described in this
section.
(5) A revocation
under this section shall continue for a period of five years from the date of
revocation. [1983 c.338 §365; 1985 c.16 §179; 1987 c.730 §17; 1987 c.887 §7;
1989 c.592 §6; 1991 c.601 §5; 1991 c.728 §4; 1995 c.209 §3; 1999 c.1051 §283;
2001 c.494 §1; 2007 c.867 §11; 2009 c.783 §12; 2018 c.76 §11]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case:
State v. Rodriguez, 175 P.3d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Rodriguez, 175 P.3d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “428(2)(c) (imposing a three-year suspension for a "third or subsequent" offense where that offense and a conviction for a separate offense occurs within a five-year period); ORS 809.”
State v. Sims, 66 P.3d 472 (Or. 2003).
· cites it 3× “In 1988, the Motor Vehicles Division (MVD) classified defendant as a Habitual Traffic Offender (HTO) under ORS 809.600 (1987), because MVD determined that defendant had been convicted of three or more major traffic offenses in a five-year period.”
State v. Harris, 118 P.3d 236 (Or. 2005).
“If a driver is convicted of 20 traffic violations in a five-year period, then the license of the driver is required to be revoked as a habitual offender under ORS 809.600(2)(b). The administrative revocation proceedings that follow pursuant to ORS 809.”
State v. Betancourt, 374 Or. 44 (Or. 2025).
“Moreover, the fact that the Oregon legislature has provided for license revoca- tion for “habitual offender[s]” who have three or more driving while suspended convictions within a five-year period, ORS 809.600(1)(c), demonstrates that the legislature understood that persons with…”
State v. Jones, 195 P.3d 78 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“ORS 809.600 - 809.660 (1997). 4 The suspension/revocation notice and hearing statute at issue in Tooley, former ORS 486.”
State v. Hardt, 726 P.2d 953 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“705 was amended by Or Laws 1981, ch 818, § 38, repealed by Or Laws 1983, ch 338, § 978, and replaced by Or Laws 1983, ch 338, § 365, as amended by Or Laws 1985, ch 16, § 179 (now ORS 809.600). 3 In Day, the defendant was convicted óf DUII.”
State v. Vandepoll, 846 P.2d 1174 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “640(1)(b): "(1) When [MVD] determines from the driving record of a person as maintained *1177 by [MVD] that a person's privileges are required to be revoked under [ former ] ORS 809.600, [MVD] shall do the following[, in addition to revoking the person's driving privileges]:…”
Moore v. Motor Vehs. Div., 818 P.2d 974 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 5× “MVD determined that it was required to revoke his driving privileges, because he was a habitual traffic offender under ORS 809.600. It sent him notice of the revocation.”
State v. Betancourt, 374 Or. 44 (Or. 2025).
“Moreover, the fact that the Oregon legislature has provided for license revoca- tion for “habitual offender[s]” who have three or more driving while suspended convictions within a five-year period, ORS 809.600(1)(c), demonstrates that the legislature understood that persons with…”
State v. Sims, 31 P.3d 1129 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “2 Concerning the issue of dismissing the charge, defendant argued that he may collaterally attack the validity of the underlying HTO order at a trial for DWR and that ORS 809.600 requires that an individual have three or more major *487 traffic offenses in a five-year period…”
State v. Daniels, 862 P.2d 524 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“ORS 809.600. Because of the grounds on which their licenses were revoked, all defendants were subject to being charged with felony driving while revoked if they operated a motor vehicle while their licenses remained revoked.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.600(1) — 3 cases
State v. Rodriguez, 175 P.3d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“428(2)(c) (imposing a three-year suspension for a "third or subsequent" offense where that offense and a conviction for a separate offense occurs within a five-year period); ORS 809.”
State v. Sims, 31 P.3d 1129 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“2 Concerning the issue of dismissing the charge, defendant argued that he may collaterally attack the validity of the underlying HTO order at a trial for DWR and that ORS 809.600 requires that an individual have three or more major *487 traffic offenses in a five-year period…”
Moore v. Motor Vehs. Div., 818 P.2d 974 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“MVD determined that it was required to revoke his driving privileges, because he was a habitual traffic offender under ORS 809.600. It sent him notice of the revocation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.600(1)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Betancourt, 374 Or. 44 (Or. 2025).
“Moreover, the fact that the Oregon legislature has provided for license revoca- tion for “habitual offender[s]” who have three or more driving while suspended convictions within a five-year period, ORS 809.600(1)(c), demonstrates that the legislature understood that persons with…”
State v. Betancourt, 374 Or. 44 (Or. 2025).
“Moreover, the fact that the Oregon legislature has provided for license revoca- tion for “habitual offender[s]” who have three or more driving while suspended convictions within a five-year period, ORS 809.600(1)(c), demonstrates that the legislature understood that persons with…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.600(2) — 1 case
State v. Rodriguez, 175 P.3d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“428(2)(c) (imposing a three-year suspension for a "third or subsequent" offense where that offense and a conviction for a separate offense occurs within a five-year period); ORS 809.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.600(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Harris, 118 P.3d 236 (Or. 2005).
“If a driver is convicted of 20 traffic violations in a five-year period, then the license of the driver is required to be revoked as a habitual offender under ORS 809.600(2)(b). The administrative revocation proceedings that follow pursuant to ORS 809.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.600(l)(c) — 1 case
Moore v. Motor Vehs. Div., 818 P.2d 974 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“MVD determined that it was required to revoke his driving privileges, because he was a habitual traffic offender under ORS 809.600. It sent him notice of the revocation.”
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.