811.182
Criminal driving while suspended or revoked; penalties. (1) A person commits the offense
of criminal driving while suspended or revoked if the person violates ORS
811.175 and the suspension or revocation is one described in this section, or
if the hardship permit violated is based upon a suspension or revocation
described in subsection (3) or (4) of this section.
(2) Affirmative
defenses to the offense described in this section are established under ORS
811.180.
(3) The offense
described in this section, criminal driving while suspended or revoked, is a
Class B felony if the suspension or revocation resulted from any degree of
murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide or assault resulting from
the operation of a motor vehicle, if the suspension or revocation resulted from
aggravated vehicular homicide or aggravated driving while suspended or revoked
or if the revocation resulted from a conviction for felony driving while under
the influence of intoxicants.
(4) The offense
described in this section, criminal driving while suspended or revoked, is a
Class A misdemeanor if the suspension or revocation is any of the following:
(a) A suspension
under ORS 809.411 (2) resulting from commission by the driver of any degree of
recklessly endangering another person, menacing or criminal mischief, resulting
from the operation of a motor vehicle.
(b) A suspension
under ORS 813.410 resulting from refusal to take a test prescribed in ORS
813.100 or for taking a breath or blood test the result of which discloses a
blood alcohol content of:
(A) 0.08 percent
or more by weight if the person was not driving a commercial motor vehicle;
(B) 0.04 percent
or more by weight if the person was driving a commercial motor vehicle; or
(C) Any amount if
the person was under 21 years of age.
(c) A suspension
of commercial driving privileges under ORS 809.510 resulting from failure to perform
the duties of a driver under ORS 811.700.
(d) A suspension
of commercial driving privileges under ORS 809.510 (7) where the person’s
commercial driving privileges have been suspended or revoked by the other
jurisdiction for failure of or refusal to take a chemical test to determine the
alcoholic content of the person’s blood under a statute that is substantially
similar to ORS 813.100.
(e) A suspension
of commercial driving privileges under ORS 809.520.
(f) A revocation
resulting from habitual offender status under ORS 809.640.
(g) A suspension
resulting from any crime punishable as a felony with proof of a material
element involving the operation of a motor vehicle, other than a crime
described in subsection (3) of this section.
(h) A suspension
for failure to perform the duties of a driver under ORS 811.705.
(i) A suspension
for reckless driving under ORS 811.140.
(j) A suspension
for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer under ORS 811.540.
(k) A suspension
or revocation resulting from misdemeanor driving while under the influence of
intoxicants under ORS 813.010.
(L) A suspension
for use of a motor vehicle in the commission of a crime punishable as a felony.
(5) In addition
to any other sentence that may be imposed, if a person is convicted of the
offense described in this section and the underlying suspension resulted from
driving while under the influence of intoxicants, the court shall impose a
minimum fine of at least $1,000 if it is the person’s first conviction for
criminal driving while suspended or revoked and a minimum fine of at least
$2,000 if it is the person’s second or subsequent conviction.
(6)(a) The Oregon
Criminal Justice Commission shall classify a violation of this section that is
a felony as crime category 4 of the rules of the commission.
(b)
Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, the commission shall classify
a violation of this section that is a felony as crime category 6 of the rules
of the commission, if the suspension or revocation resulted from:
(A) Any degree of
murder, manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide or an assault that causes
serious physical injury, resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle; or
(B) Aggravated
vehicular homicide or aggravated driving while suspended or revoked. [1987
c.730 §§3,3a; 1989 c.636 §46; 1991 c.185 §10; 1991 c.860 §9; 1993 c.305 §2;
1995 c.568 §2; 1997 c.249 §230; 1999 c.1049 §7; 2001 c.436 §1; 2001 c.786 §2;
2003 c.346 §3; 2003 c.402 §37; 2005 c.649 §19; 2007 c.867 §13; 2009 c.783 §14;
2011 c.597 §97; 2013 c.237 §26; 2013 c.649 §3; 2018 c.76 §13; 2021 c.630 §113]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
221
cases (
56 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case:
State v. Olmstead, 800 P.2d 277 (Or. 1990).
State v. Olmstead, 800 P.2d 277 (Or. 1990).
· cites it 16× “010, [1] and driving while suspended (DWS), ORS 811.182. [2] Pursuant to ORS 161.309, he gave notice of his intent to raise the affirmative defense of guilty except for insanity under ORS 161.”
State v. Jones, 195 P.3d 78 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 16× “We acknowledged that, in Sims , the Supreme Court held that a different provision in an earlier version of ORS 811.182 — the 1997 version of the provision criminalizing driving while suspended or revoked and making it a felony if the suspension or revocation “resulted from” the…”
State v. Sims, 66 P.3d 472 (Or. 2003).
· cites it 9× “We begin our analysis by examining the text and context of ORS 811.182 (1997), the statute that criminalized defendant’s driving with a revoked driver license.”
State v. Rodarte, 35 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 7× “” Specifically, the state relies on ORS 811.182(3)(c) (1997), 5 which provides the penalty for driving in violation of a revocation order issued based on a felony vehicular conviction.”
State v. Early, 43 P.3d 439 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 15× “ORS 811.182 (1997). On appeal, he argues that the indictment failed to state a crime because it did not allege the particular basis of the underlying suspension of his driving privileges.”
State v. Davis, 239 P.3d 1002 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 5× “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving while suspended (DWS), ORS 811.182. [1] He was arrested after a Jackson County Sheriff's deputy randomly accessed defendant's driving records after defendant drove by the deputy.”
State v. Savath, 447 P.3d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “830, and driving while suspended, ORS 811.182(3). Defendant assigns error to the denial of his motion to suppress text messages discovered on his cell phone, arguing that the warrant authorizing the search did not satisfy the particularity requirement of Article I, section 9, of…”
State v. Jones, 112 P.3d 356 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 14× “It reasoned that the legislature did not intend that the state be required to prove the validity of the prior order in light of the elements of ORS 811.182 (1997) 2 that only required proof that DMV had revoked defendant’s license based on a prior *430 suspension order as a…”
State v. Harris, 118 P.3d 236 (Or. 2005).
· cites it 2× “The foundation of criminal driving while suspended rests on repeated traffic violations, charges expressly exempt from jury trials under ORS 152.”
State v. Little, 533 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 3× “In particular, he contends that a single, minor deviation over the fog line is not enough to support a citation for failing to drive within a lane, ORS 811.”
State v. Borders, 429 P.3d 1067 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The trial court imposed two special conditions of probation: (1) that defendant "not use or possess alcoholic beverages," and (2) that defendant attend a DUII victim's impact panel and pay an attendance fee of $20.”
State v. Backstrand, 220 P.3d 748 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “ORS 811.182. He makes two assignments of error on appeal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(1) — 8 cases
State v. Olmstead, 800 P.2d 277 (Or. 1990).
“010, [1] and driving while suspended (DWS), ORS 811.182. [2] Pursuant to ORS 161.309, he gave notice of his intent to raise the affirmative defense of guilty except for insanity under ORS 161.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(2) — 1 case
State v. Olmstead, 800 P.2d 277 (Or. 1990).
“010, [1] and driving while suspended (DWS), ORS 811.182. [2] Pursuant to ORS 161.309, he gave notice of his intent to raise the affirmative defense of guilty except for insanity under ORS 161.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(3) — 27 cases
State v. Savath, 447 P.3d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“830, and driving while suspended, ORS 811.182(3). Defendant assigns error to the denial of his motion to suppress text messages discovered on his cell phone, arguing that the warrant authorizing the search did not satisfy the particularity requirement of Article I, section 9, of…”
State v. Olmstead, 800 P.2d 277 (Or. 1990).
“010, [1] and driving while suspended (DWS), ORS 811.182. [2] Pursuant to ORS 161.309, he gave notice of his intent to raise the affirmative defense of guilty except for insanity under ORS 161.”
State v. Jones, 112 P.3d 356 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“It reasoned that the legislature did not intend that the state be required to prove the validity of the prior order in light of the elements of ORS 811.182 (1997) 2 that only required proof that DMV had revoked defendant’s license based on a prior *430 suspension order as a…”
State v. Jones, 195 P.3d 78 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“We acknowledged that, in Sims , the Supreme Court held that a different provision in an earlier version of ORS 811.182 — the 1997 version of the provision criminalizing driving while suspended or revoked and making it a felony if the suspension or revocation “resulted from” the…”
State v. Early, 43 P.3d 439 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“ORS 811.182 (1997). On appeal, he argues that the indictment failed to state a crime because it did not allege the particular basis of the underlying suspension of his driving privileges.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(3)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Jones, 112 P.3d 356 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“It reasoned that the legislature did not intend that the state be required to prove the validity of the prior order in light of the elements of ORS 811.182 (1997) 2 that only required proof that DMV had revoked defendant’s license based on a prior *430 suspension order as a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(3)(b) — 1 case
State v. Early, 43 P.3d 439 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“ORS 811.182 (1997). On appeal, he argues that the indictment failed to state a crime because it did not allege the particular basis of the underlying suspension of his driving privileges.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(3)(c) — 1 case
State v. Rodarte, 35 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“” Specifically, the state relies on ORS 811.182(3)(c) (1997), 5 which provides the penalty for driving in violation of a revocation order issued based on a felony vehicular conviction.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(3)(g) — 4 cases
State v. Early, 43 P.3d 439 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“ORS 811.182 (1997). On appeal, he argues that the indictment failed to state a crime because it did not allege the particular basis of the underlying suspension of his driving privileges.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(3Xa) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(4) — 46 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(4)(a) — 1 case
State v. Early, 43 P.3d 439 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“ORS 811.182 (1997). On appeal, he argues that the indictment failed to state a crime because it did not allege the particular basis of the underlying suspension of his driving privileges.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(4)(b) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(4)(c)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(4)(f) — 2 cases
State v. Harris, 118 P.3d 236 (Or. 2005).
“The foundation of criminal driving while suspended rests on repeated traffic violations, charges expressly exempt from jury trials under ORS 152.”
State v. Sims, 66 P.3d 472 (Or. 2003).
“We begin our analysis by examining the text and context of ORS 811.182 (1997), the statute that criminalized defendant’s driving with a revoked driver license.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(4)(g) — 1 case
State v. Rodarte, 35 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“” Specifically, the state relies on ORS 811.182(3)(c) (1997), 5 which provides the penalty for driving in violation of a revocation order issued based on a felony vehicular conviction.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.182(5) — 3 cases
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.