Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010

Driving under the influence of intoxicants; penalty

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      813.010 Driving under the influence of intoxicants; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants if the person drives a vehicle while the person:

      (a) Has 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood of the person as shown by chemical analysis of the breath or blood of the person made under ORS 813.100, 813.140 or 813.150;

      (b) Is under the influence of an intoxicant or a combination of intoxicants; or

      (c) Within two hours after driving a vehicle, and without consuming alcohol in the intervening time period, has 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood of the person, as shown by chemical analysis of the breath or blood of the person made under ORS 813.100, 813.140 or 813.150.

      (2) A person may not be convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicants on the basis of being under the influence of a controlled substance or an inhalant unless the fact that the person was under the influence of a controlled substance or an inhalant is pleaded in the accusatory instrument and is either proved at trial or is admitted by the person through a guilty plea.

      (3) A person convicted of the offense described in this section is subject to ORS 813.020 in addition to this section.

      (4) Except as provided in subsection (5) of this section, the offense described in this section, driving while under the influence of intoxicants, is a Class A misdemeanor and is applicable upon any premises open to the public.

      (5)(a) Driving while under the influence of intoxicants is a Class C felony if the current offense was committed in a motor vehicle and the person has, at least three times in the 10 years prior to the date of the current offense, been convicted of, or been found to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for an act that if committed by an adult would be, any of the following offenses in any combination:

      (A) Driving while under the influence of intoxicants in violation of this section.

      (B) The statutory counterpart to this section in another jurisdiction.

      (C) A driving under the influence of intoxicants offense in another jurisdiction that involved the impaired driving or operation of a vehicle, an aircraft or a boat due to the use of an intoxicant or a combination of intoxicants.

      (D) A driving offense in another jurisdiction that involved operating a vehicle, an aircraft or a boat while having a blood alcohol content above that jurisdiction’s permissible blood alcohol content.

      (b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection, a conviction or adjudication for a driving offense in another jurisdiction based solely on a person under 21 years of age having a blood alcohol content that is lower than the permissible blood alcohol content in that jurisdiction for a person 21 years of age or older does not constitute a prior conviction or adjudication.

      (6) In addition to any other sentence that may be imposed, the court shall impose one or more of the following fines on a person convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicants as follows:

      (a) If the current offense was committed while riding a bicycle, a minimum of $500.

      (b) For a person’s first conviction if the current offense was committed while operating a vehicle other than a bicycle, a minimum of $1,000.

      (c) For a person’s second conviction if the current offense was committed while operating a vehicle other than a bicycle, a minimum of $1,500.

      (d) For a person’s third or subsequent conviction if the current offense was committed while operating a vehicle other than a bicycle, a minimum of $2,000 if the person is not sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

      (e)(A) For a person who drives a vehicle, other than a bicycle, while the person has 0.15 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood of the person as shown by chemical analysis of the breath or blood of the person made under ORS 813.100, 813.140 or 813.150, a minimum of $2,000.

      (B) For a person who, within two hours after driving a vehicle, other than a bicycle, and without consuming alcohol in the intervening time period, has 0.15 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood of the person, as shown by chemical analysis of the breath or blood of the person made under ORS 813.100, 813.140 or 813.150, a minimum of $2,000.

      (C) For a person who rides a bicycle while the person has 0.15 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood of the person as shown by chemical analysis of the breath or blood of the person made under ORS 813.140 or 813.150, a minimum of $1,000.

      (D) For a person who, within two hours after riding a bicycle, and without consuming alcohol in the intervening time period, has 0.15 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood of the person, as shown by chemical analysis of the breath or blood of the person made under ORS 813.140 or 813.150, a minimum of $1,000.

      (7) Notwithstanding ORS 161.635, $10,000 is the maximum fine that a court may impose on a person convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicants if:

      (a) The current offense was committed in a motor vehicle; and

      (b) There was a passenger in the motor vehicle who was under 18 years of age and was at least three years younger than the person driving the motor vehicle.

      (8) When the court enters a judgment of conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicants, the court shall indicate in the judgment document whether the person was riding a bicycle.

      (9) As used in this section, “bicycle” does not include electric assisted bicycles. [1983 c.338 §587; 1985 c.16 §293; 1987 c.138 §5; 1991 c.835 §7; 1999 c.619 §3; 1999 c.1049 §1; 2003 c.14 §495; 2003 c.445 §1; 2007 c.879 §3; 2009 c.525 §1; 2009 c.613 §1; 2017 c.21 §80; 2021 c.253 §6; 2021 c.480 §1; 2023 c.498 §3]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,131 cases (244 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: State v. Guzman/Heckler
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Guzman/Heckler (2019) or · cites it 79× “(CC 16CR33772) (CA A163979) (SC S066373) 455 P3d 485 Defendants unsuccessfully moved to exclude certain prior convictions, argu- ing that those convictions were not “statutory counterparts” to ORS 813.010 that could raise the seriousness of their present driving under the…”
State v. EUMANA-MORANCHEL (2012) or · cites it 111× “150; *551 "(b) Is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance or an inhalant; or "(c) Is under the influence of any combination of intoxicating liquor, an inhalant and a controlled substance.”
State v. Rodriguez (2007) orctapp · cites it 28× “436, § 1, [1] which provides that *473 a court must order a person's driving privileges revoked either if the person is convicted of felony driving while under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) or "if the person is convicted of misdemeanor driving while under the influence of…”
State v. Donovan (2011) orctapp · cites it 49× “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010. 1 She argues that the trial court erred in determining she was ineligible for diversion under ORS 813.”
State v. Kellar (2011) or · cites it 31× “540 to ORS 813.010. 1 Later, the legislature provided for permanent revocation 2 of a person’s driver’s license when, among other things, the person has been convicted for a third time of DUII “in violation of * * * ORS 813.”
State v. Miller (1990) or · cites it 28× “The issue is whether a defendant may be convicted of violating ORS 813.010 without proof of a culpable mental state as to the element of being under the influence of an intoxicant.”
State v. Hedgpeth (2019) or · cites it 8× “The crime is currently codified at ORS 813.010, which provides, “(1) A person commits the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants if the person drives a vehicle while the person: “(a) Has 0.”
State v. Mersman (2007) orctapp · cites it 41× “” Defendant objected, arguing that the two prior Alaska convictions did not qualify as convictions under the “statutory counterpart” of ORS 813.010 because the Alaska statute under which he was convicted criminalized a broader range of conduct than ORS 813.”
State v. Mazzola (2015) or · cites it 15× “public or the highways of the state shall be deemed to have given consent to submit to field sobriety tests upon the request of a police officer for the purpose of determining if the person is under the influence of intoxicants if the police officer reasonably suspects that the…”
State v. Frier (2014) orctapp · cites it 24× “Defendant appeals a judgment reflecting her conviction of four misdemeanors: driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) in violation of ORS 813.010, driving while suspended, and two counts of failure to appear.”
State v. Ortiz (2005) orctapp · cites it 22× “” Defendant objected, arguing that at least one of the prior Idaho convictions did not qualify *698 as a conviction under the “statutory counterpart” of ORS 813.010 because the Idaho statute under which he was convicted defined an entirely different offense from the one that is…”
State v. Ramirez (2021) orctapp · cites it 30× “235(1)(b). Specifically, he contends that the trial court erred in concluding that his Washington convic- tion for first-degree negligent driving qualified as a predicate offense under ORS 809.”
Show all 1,131 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(1) — 87 cases
State v. Guzman/Heckler (2019) or “(CC 16CR33772) (CA A163979) (SC S066373) 455 P3d 485 Defendants unsuccessfully moved to exclude certain prior convictions, argu- ing that those convictions were not “statutory counterparts” to ORS 813.010 that could raise the seriousness of their present driving under the…”
State v. EUMANA-MORANCHEL (2012) or “150; *551 "(b) Is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance or an inhalant; or "(c) Is under the influence of any combination of intoxicating liquor, an inhalant and a controlled substance.”
State v. King (1993) or
State v. Hedgpeth (2019) or “The crime is currently codified at ORS 813.010, which provides, “(1) A person commits the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants if the person drives a vehicle while the person: “(a) Has 0.”
State v. Veatch (2008) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(1)(a) — 43 cases
State v. EUMANA-MORANCHEL (2012) or “150; *551 "(b) Is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance or an inhalant; or "(c) Is under the influence of any combination of intoxicating liquor, an inhalant and a controlled substance.”
State v. Hedgpeth (2019) or “The crime is currently codified at ORS 813.010, which provides, “(1) A person commits the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants if the person drives a vehicle while the person: “(a) Has 0.”
State v. Guzman/Heckler (2019) or “(CC 16CR33772) (CA A163979) (SC S066373) 455 P3d 485 Defendants unsuccessfully moved to exclude certain prior convictions, argu- ing that those convictions were not “statutory counterparts” to ORS 813.010 that could raise the seriousness of their present driving under the…”
State v. Ross (1997) orctapp
State v. Hedgpeth (2018) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(1)(b) — 24 cases
State v. EUMANA-MORANCHEL (2012) or “150; *551 "(b) Is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance or an inhalant; or "(c) Is under the influence of any combination of intoxicating liquor, an inhalant and a controlled substance.”
State v. Hedgpeth (2019) or “The crime is currently codified at ORS 813.010, which provides, “(1) A person commits the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants if the person drives a vehicle while the person: “(a) Has 0.”
State v. Sampson (2000) orctapp
State v. Stroup (1997) orctapp
State v. Nielsen (1997) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(1)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Burgholzer (2002) orctapp
State v. Leachman (2017) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(1)(d) — 1 case
State v. Renfro (2022) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(2) — 13 cases
State v. Stiles (2000) orctapp
State v. Avila (2022) orctapp
State v. Chipman (2001) orctapp
State v. McFeron (2000) orctapp
State v. Olmstead (1990) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(3) — 9 cases
State v. Olmstead (1990) or
State v. Miller (1990) or “The issue is whether a defendant may be convicted of violating ORS 813.010 without proof of a culpable mental state as to the element of being under the influence of an intoxicant.”
State v. Frier (2014) orctapp “Defendant appeals a judgment reflecting her conviction of four misdemeanors: driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) in violation of ORS 813.010, driving while suspended, and two counts of failure to appear.”
State v. Sisneros (1987) orctapp
Svidenko v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Division (2011) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(4) — 98 cases
State v. Ortiz (2023) orctapp
State v. Merrill (2021) orctapp
State v. Babcock (2023) orctapp
State v. Rockafellor (2023) orctapp
State v. Tison (2018) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(5) — 39 cases
State v. Rodriguez (2007) orctapp “436, § 1, [1] which provides that *473 a court must order a person's driving privileges revoked either if the person is convicted of felony driving while under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) or "if the person is convicted of misdemeanor driving while under the influence of…”
State v. Mersman (2007) orctapp “” Defendant objected, arguing that the two prior Alaska convictions did not qualify as convictions under the “statutory counterpart” of ORS 813.010 because the Alaska statute under which he was convicted criminalized a broader range of conduct than ORS 813.”
State v. Probst (2005) or
State v. Donathan (2016) orctapp
State v. Guzman/Heckler (2019) or “(CC 16CR33772) (CA A163979) (SC S066373) 455 P3d 485 Defendants unsuccessfully moved to exclude certain prior convictions, argu- ing that those convictions were not “statutory counterparts” to ORS 813.010 that could raise the seriousness of their present driving under the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(5)(a) — 8 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. B. (In Re J. B.) (2018) or
State v. Ramirez (2021) orctapp “235(1)(b). Specifically, he contends that the trial court erred in concluding that his Washington convic- tion for first-degree negligent driving qualified as a predicate offense under ORS 809.”
State v. Molver (2010) orctapp
State v. Rose (2023) orctapp
State v. Meyers (2022) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(5)(a)(A)(ii) — 3 cases
State v. Guzman/Heckler (2019) or “(CC 16CR33772) (CA A163979) (SC S066373) 455 P3d 485 Defendants unsuccessfully moved to exclude certain prior convictions, argu- ing that those convictions were not “statutory counterparts” to ORS 813.010 that could raise the seriousness of their present driving under the…”
State v. Carlton (2017) or
State v. Carlton (2017) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(5)(a)(ii) — 1 case
Molette v. Nooth (2018) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(6) — 12 cases
State v. Koelzer (2023) orctapp
State v. Tison (2018) orctapp
State v. Shepherd (2020) orctapp
State v. Sanchez (2024) orctapp
State v. Sanchez (2024) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(6)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Cloutier (2011) or
State v. Frier (2014) orctapp “Defendant appeals a judgment reflecting her conviction of four misdemeanors: driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) in violation of ORS 813.010, driving while suspended, and two counts of failure to appear.”
State v. Sanchez (2024) orctapp
State v. Jacquez (2016) orccmalheur
State v. Sanchez (2024) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(6)(b) — 7 cases
State v. Frier (2014) orctapp “Defendant appeals a judgment reflecting her conviction of four misdemeanors: driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) in violation of ORS 813.010, driving while suspended, and two counts of failure to appear.”
State v. Callen (2025) orctapp
State v. Koelzer (2023) orctapp
State v. Sanchez (2024) orctapp
State v. Sanchez (2024) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(6)(c) — 11 cases
State v. Frier (2014) orctapp “Defendant appeals a judgment reflecting her conviction of four misdemeanors: driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) in violation of ORS 813.010, driving while suspended, and two counts of failure to appear.”
State v. Rodriguez (2007) orctapp “436, § 1, [1] which provides that *473 a court must order a person's driving privileges revoked either if the person is convicted of felony driving while under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) or "if the person is convicted of misdemeanor driving while under the influence of…”
State v. Koelzer (2023) orctapp
State v. Dennis (2020) orctapp
State v. Carter (2020) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(6)(d) — 9 cases
State v. Colgrove (2021) orctapp
State v. Dibartolomeo (2025) orctapp
State v. Soto (2015) orctapp
State v. Dibartolomeo (2025) orctapp
State v. Shipps (2025) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(6)(e)(A) — 2 cases
State v. Shipps (2025) orctapp
State v. Shipps (2025) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(7) — 3 cases
State v. Shepherd (2020) orctapp
State v. Sanchez (2024) orctapp
State v. Sanchez (2024) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(a) — 5 cases
State v. Ritz (2017) or
State v. Coen (2005) orctapp
State v. Phillips (1996) orctapp
State v. Ritz (2017) or
Inquiry Concerning a Judge Re the Honorable Norblad (2002) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(l)(a) — 45 cases
State v. EUMANA-MORANCHEL (2012) or “150; *551 "(b) Is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance or an inhalant; or "(c) Is under the influence of any combination of intoxicating liquor, an inhalant and a controlled substance.”
State v. O'Key (1995) or
State v. Mazzola (2015) or “public or the highways of the state shall be deemed to have given consent to submit to field sobriety tests upon the request of a police officer for the purpose of determining if the person is under the influence of intoxicants if the police officer reasonably suspects that the…”
State v. Ritz (2017) or
State v. MacHuca (2010) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(l)(b) — 25 cases
State v. Mazzola (2015) or “public or the highways of the state shall be deemed to have given consent to submit to field sobriety tests upon the request of a police officer for the purpose of determining if the person is under the influence of intoxicants if the police officer reasonably suspects that the…”
State v. EUMANA-MORANCHEL (2012) or “150; *551 "(b) Is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance or an inhalant; or "(c) Is under the influence of any combination of intoxicating liquor, an inhalant and a controlled substance.”
State v. Beltran-Chavez (2017) orctapp
State v. Arndt (2014) washctapp
State v. Sampson (2000) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010(l)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Leachman (2017) orctapp
State v. Beck (2012) orctapp
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.