Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.180 (2026)

Affirmative defenses

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      811.180 Affirmative defenses. The following establishes affirmative defenses in prosecutions for driving while suspended or revoked in violation of ORS 811.175 or 811.182 and describes when the affirmative defenses are not available:

      (1) In addition to other defenses provided by law, including but not limited to ORS 161.200, it is an affirmative defense to the offenses described in ORS 811.175 and 811.182 that:

      (a) An injury or immediate threat of injury to a human being or animal, and the urgency of the circumstances made it necessary for the defendant to drive a motor vehicle at the time and place in question; or

      (b) The defendant had not received notice of the defendant’s suspension or revocation or been informed of the suspension or revocation by a trial judge who ordered a suspension or revocation of the defendant’s driving privileges or right to apply.

      (2) The affirmative defenses described in subsection (1)(b) of this section are not available to a defendant under the circumstances described in this subsection. Any of the evidence specified in this subsection may be offered in the prosecution’s case in chief. This subsection applies if any of the following circumstances exist:

      (a) The defendant refused to accept a notification provided by the department, including refusing to sign a receipt for the certified mail containing the notice of suspension or revocation.

      (b) The notice of suspension or revocation could not be delivered to the defendant because the defendant failed to comply with the requirements under ORS 807.560 to notify the Department of Transportation of a change of address or residence.

      (c) At a previous court appearance, the defendant had been informed by a trial judge that the judge was ordering a suspension or revocation of the defendant’s driving privileges or right to apply.

      (d) The defendant had actual knowledge of the suspension or revocation by any means prior to the time the defendant was stopped on the current charge.

      (e) The defendant was provided with notice of intent to suspend under ORS 813.100. [1983 c.338 §599; 1985 c.16 §305; 1985 c.672 §18; 1985 c.744 §1; 1987 c.138 §2; 1987 c.158 §168; 1987 c.730 §20; 1987 c.801 §10; 1997 c.249 §229; 2019 c.312 §25]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: State v. Sanchez-Cacatzun, 468 P.3d 964 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sanchez-Cacatzun, 468 P.3d 964 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 26× “2 Subsequent to the pertinent events of this case, ORS 811.180 was amended. Or Laws 2019, ch 312, § 25.”
State v. Click, 755 P.2d 693 (Or. 1988). · cites it 20× “" Although driving while suspended is a strict liability offense, drivers who were not notified of the suspension may raise an affirmative defense under ORS 811.180. State v. Buttrey, 293 Or. 575 , 651 P.”
State v. Clowdus, 530 P.3d 525 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 8× “On appeal, defendant argues that, because there was evi- dence to support each element of the defenses of necessity, ORS 811.180(1)(a), and choice of evils, ORS 161.”
State v. Hayes, 782 P.2d 177 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 16× “" The court, even though it found that defendant had not received the notice, denied his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that, because he had not notified DMV of his new residence, he was foreclosed from the affirmative defense under ORS 811.180. Defendant argues,…”
State v. Oneill, 303 P.3d 944 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “In Brown , the Supreme Court considered the scope of ORS 811.180(1)(a), which provides an affirmative defense under the vehicle code.”
State v. Brown, 761 P.2d 1300 (Or. 1988). · cites it 3× “He does not dispute that he was driving while his license was suspended; rather he seeks to raise the affirmative defense provided by ORS 811.180. 2 After defendant had rested, the state moved to withdraw the defense from the jury’s consideration on grounds that the evidence was…”
State v. Mayo, 465 P.3d 267 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “115(1)(a) (it is an “affir- mative defense” to intentional murder that “the defendant was under the influence of an extreme emotional distur- bance”); ORS 811.180 (establishing affirmative defenses in prosecutions for driving while suspended or revoked); ORS 161.”
State v. Velykoretskykh, 343 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “ORS 811.180(1) provides, in part: “ [I] t is an affirmative defense to the offenses described in ORS 811.”
State v. Rafeh, 393 P.3d 1155 (Or. 2017). · cites it 2× “” ORS 811.180(2)(e). The state contended, and defendant did not dispute, that the Implied Consent Combined Report constituted notice of intent to suspend under ORS 813.”
State v. Davis, 156 P.3d 93 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “The only purpose that the form could have served in this case would have been to negate defendant’s testimony if she had tried to avail herself of the “lack of notice” affirmative defense against driving while suspended specified in ORS 811.180(l)(b) (affirmative defense to…”
State v. Costanzo, 766 P.2d 415 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “” ORS 811.180 provides, in pertinent part: “(1) In addition to other defenses provided by law, including but not limited to ORS 161.”
State v. Sweet, 763 P.2d 739 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “ORS 811.180(l)(a). The instruction should have been given.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.180(1) — 5 cases
State v. Click, 755 P.2d 693 (Or. 1988). “" Although driving while suspended is a strict liability offense, drivers who were not notified of the suspension may raise an affirmative defense under ORS 811.180. State v. Buttrey, 293 Or. 575 , 651 P.”
State v. Velykoretskykh, 343 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “ORS 811.180(1) provides, in part: “ [I] t is an affirmative defense to the offenses described in ORS 811.”
State v. Abram, 359 P.3d 431 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. DeMello, 716 P.2d 732 (Or. 1986).
State v. Sickles, 736 P.2d 223 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.180(1)(a) — 6 cases
State v. Clowdus, 530 P.3d 525 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “On appeal, defendant argues that, because there was evi- dence to support each element of the defenses of necessity, ORS 811.180(1)(a), and choice of evils, ORS 161.”
State v. Oneill, 303 P.3d 944 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “In Brown , the Supreme Court considered the scope of ORS 811.180(1)(a), which provides an affirmative defense under the vehicle code.”
State v. Olson, 719 P.2d 55 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Costanzo, 766 P.2d 415 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “” ORS 811.180 provides, in pertinent part: “(1) In addition to other defenses provided by law, including but not limited to ORS 161.”
State v. Clowes, 785 P.2d 1071 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.180(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Sanchez-Cacatzun, 468 P.3d 964 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “2 Subsequent to the pertinent events of this case, ORS 811.180 was amended. Or Laws 2019, ch 312, § 25.”
State v. Hayes, 782 P.2d 177 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “" The court, even though it found that defendant had not received the notice, denied his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that, because he had not notified DMV of his new residence, he was foreclosed from the affirmative defense under ORS 811.180. Defendant argues,…”
State v. Straley, 717 P.2d 638 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.180(2) — 3 cases
State v. Hayes, 782 P.2d 177 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “" The court, even though it found that defendant had not received the notice, denied his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that, because he had not notified DMV of his new residence, he was foreclosed from the affirmative defense under ORS 811.180. Defendant argues,…”
State v. Sanchez-Cacatzun, 468 P.3d 964 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “2 Subsequent to the pertinent events of this case, ORS 811.180 was amended. Or Laws 2019, ch 312, § 25.”
State v. Click, 755 P.2d 693 (Or. 1988). “" Although driving while suspended is a strict liability offense, drivers who were not notified of the suspension may raise an affirmative defense under ORS 811.180. State v. Buttrey, 293 Or. 575 , 651 P.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.180(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Click, 755 P.2d 693 (Or. 1988). “" Although driving while suspended is a strict liability offense, drivers who were not notified of the suspension may raise an affirmative defense under ORS 811.180. State v. Buttrey, 293 Or. 575 , 651 P.”
State v. Piper, 763 P.2d 741 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.180(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Hayes, 782 P.2d 177 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “" The court, even though it found that defendant had not received the notice, denied his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that, because he had not notified DMV of his new residence, he was foreclosed from the affirmative defense under ORS 811.180. Defendant argues,…”
State v. Sickles, 736 P.2d 223 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.180(2)(e) — 2 cases
State v. Sanchez-Cacatzun, 468 P.3d 964 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “2 Subsequent to the pertinent events of this case, ORS 811.180 was amended. Or Laws 2019, ch 312, § 25.”
State v. Rafeh, 393 P.3d 1155 (Or. 2017). “” ORS 811.180(2)(e). The state contended, and defendant did not dispute, that the Implied Consent Combined Report constituted notice of intent to suspend under ORS 813.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.180(l)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Brown, 761 P.2d 1300 (Or. 1988). “He does not dispute that he was driving while his license was suspended; rather he seeks to raise the affirmative defense provided by ORS 811.180. 2 After defendant had rested, the state moved to withdraw the defense from the jury’s consideration on grounds that the evidence was…”
State v. Oneill, 303 P.3d 944 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “In Brown , the Supreme Court considered the scope of ORS 811.180(1)(a), which provides an affirmative defense under the vehicle code.”
State v. Sweet, 763 P.2d 739 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “ORS 811.180(l)(a). The instruction should have been given.”
State v. Clowes, 785 P.2d 1071 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Vanderzanden, 337 P.3d 150 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.180(l)(b) — 7 cases
State v. Velykoretskykh, 343 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “ORS 811.180(1) provides, in part: “ [I] t is an affirmative defense to the offenses described in ORS 811.”
State v. Davis, 156 P.3d 93 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “The only purpose that the form could have served in this case would have been to negate defendant’s testimony if she had tried to avail herself of the “lack of notice” affirmative defense against driving while suspended specified in ORS 811.180(l)(b) (affirmative defense to…”
State v. Rafeh, 393 P.3d 1155 (Or. 2017). “” ORS 811.180(2)(e). The state contended, and defendant did not dispute, that the Implied Consent Combined Report constituted notice of intent to suspend under ORS 813.”
State v. Hayes, 782 P.2d 177 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “" The court, even though it found that defendant had not received the notice, denied his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that, because he had not notified DMV of his new residence, he was foreclosed from the affirmative defense under ORS 811.180. Defendant argues,…”
State v. Click, 742 P.2d 67 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
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.