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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.095 (2026)

Offense of refusal to take a test for intoxicants; penalty

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

      813.095 Offense of refusal to take a test for intoxicants; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of refusal to take a test for intoxicants if the person refuses to:

      (a) Take a breath test when requested to do so in accordance with the provisions of ORS 813.100; or

      (b) Take a urine test when requested to do so in accordance with the provisions of ORS 813.131 and 813.132.

      (2) The offense described in this section, refusal to take a test for intoxicants, is a specific fine traffic violation. The presumptive fine for refusal to take a test for intoxicants is $650. The fine described in this section is in addition to any other consequence prescribed by law for refusal to take a test for intoxicants. [2003 c.814 §2; 2009 c.614 §1; 2011 c.597 §102]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: State v. Moore, 318 P.3d 1133 (Or. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Moore, 318 P.3d 1133 (Or. 2013). · cites it 2× “” Finally, a refusal to take a breath or urine test is a “specific fine traffic violation” under ORS 813.095. On review in this court, the state asserts that the police officer in this case accurately read defendant the statement of the rights and consequences of refusing to…”
State v. Cabanilla, 273 P.3d 125 (Or. 2012). · cites it 4× “010, and the trial court convicted defendant of refusing to take a breath test, ORS 813.095. 1 The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s convictions without opinion.”
State v. Veatch, 196 P.3d 45 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “When the officer *61 replied in the affirmative, he was asked by the prosecutor, "How did [defendant] respond?" Had a motion for a mistrial been made, the trial court could have found, in the exercise of its lawful discretion, that no reasonable juror would have inferred guilt…”
State v. Totland, 438 P.3d 399 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “" Defendant pleaded guilty to the violation of refusing to take a test for intoxicants, ORS 813.095, and went to trial on the charge of DUII.”
Jonathan Albert Leal v. State, 452 S.W.3d 14 (Tex. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “47, § 753 (Westlaw); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 813.095 , 813.100 (Westlaw); 75 Pa.”
State v. MacHuca, 227 P.3d 729 (Or. 2010). “The court reasoned that (1) defendant’s consent to have his blood drawn and tested had been unlawfully coerced because he had been read the legal consequences for refusing to consent to those procedures as required by Oregon’s implied consent statutes, ORS 813.095 to 813.136;…”
State v. Corkill, 325 P.3d 796 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “010, and for unlawfully refusing to take a breath test, in violation of ORS 813.095. In a single assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred “by permitting the prosecutor to ask defendant [during cross-examination] whether the police officer witnesses were lying.”
State v. Ritz, 399 P.3d 421 (Or. 2017). “This court did not reach the question of whether the defendant’s consent was valid, because it held that, based on the exigent circumstances, the state was allowed to compel the blood draw.”
State v. Ortiz, 124 P.3d 611 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “See ORS 813.095, ORS 813.100, ORS 813.310, and ORS 813.”
State v. Roeder, 147 P.3d 363 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 9× “The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges on former jeopardy grounds because defendant previously had been acquitted of a violation concerning his refusal to take a breath test, ORS 813.095. On appeal, the state asserts that the trial court erred for…”
State v. Peterson, 287 P.3d 1243 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “010, and refusal to take a test for intoxicants, ORS 813.095, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument because the 19-month delay between his arraignment and trial violated his right to be tried within a “reasonable time”…”
State v. Tyon, 204 P.3d 106 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “010, and refusal to take a breath test, ORS 813.095. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s exclusion of evidence of the arresting officer’s alleged bias.”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.095(1) — 3 cases
State v. Ritz, 399 P.3d 421 (Or. 2017). “This court did not reach the question of whether the defendant’s consent was valid, because it held that, based on the exigent circumstances, the state was allowed to compel the blood draw.”
State v. Gardner, 236 P.3d 742 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Ritz (Or. 2017).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.095(2) — 3 cases
State v. Bloom, 172 P.3d 663 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Roeder, 147 P.3d 363 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges on former jeopardy grounds because defendant previously had been acquitted of a violation concerning his refusal to take a breath test, ORS 813.095. On appeal, the state asserts that the trial court erred for…”
State v. Allen, 329 Or. App. 320 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
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.