813.131
Implied consent to urine test; privacy; laboratories for analysis. (1) A person may be asked to
provide a urine sample under ORS 813.140 or subsection (2) of this section.
(2) Any person
who operates a motor vehicle upon premises open to the public or the highways
of this state shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to the Motorist
Implied Consent Law, to a chemical test of the person’s urine for the purpose
of determining the presence of an intoxicant other than intoxicating liquor in
the person’s body if the person is arrested for driving while under the
influence of intoxicants in violation of ORS 813.010 or of a municipal
ordinance and either:
(a) The person
takes the breath test described in ORS 813.100 and the test discloses a blood
alcohol content of less than 0.08 percent; or
(b) The person is
involved in an accident resulting in injury or property damage. A urine test
may be requested under this paragraph regardless of whether a breath test has
been requested and regardless of the results of a breath test, if one is taken.
(3) A police
officer may not request a urine test unless the officer is certified by the
Department of Public Safety Standards and Training as having completed at least
eight hours of training in recognition of drug impaired driving and the officer
has a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has been driving while
under the influence of an intoxicant other than intoxicating liquor or a
combination of intoxicants.
(4) A person
asked to give a urine sample shall be given privacy and may not be observed by
a police officer when producing the sample.
(5)(a) At the
trial of any civil or criminal action, suit or proceeding arising out of the
acts committed by a person driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of
intoxicants, a valid chemical analysis of a person’s urine is admissible as
evidence and may be used with other evidence, if any, to determine whether the
person was driving while under the influence of intoxicants.
(b) A chemical
analysis of a person’s urine is valid if analysis is performed in an accredited
or licensed toxicology laboratory. [1995 c.676 §1; 1999 c.619 §10; 1999 c.752 §1;
2009 c.325 §1; 2015 c.11 §1; 2017 c.21 §82; 2019 c.475 §3; 2021 c.253 §8; 2023
c.498 §12]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
33
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case:
State v. Chipman, 31 P.3d 478 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Chipman, 31 P.3d 478 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 17× “The state further argues that, even if the statute was violated, ORS 813.131 does not require the exclusion of the results, because ORS 136.”
State v. Moore, 318 P.3d 1133 (Or. 2013).
· cites it 4× “132, “a refusal to take a urine test requested under ORS 813.131 shall be treated for all purposes as a refusal to take a breath test.”
State v. Thomas (A173467), 524 P.3d 969 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 7× “In rejecting the state’s argument that UAs were categorically admissible under the version of ORS 813.131 in effect at the time, we noted that “ORS 813.”
State v. Fong, 204 P.3d 146 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 12× “) Defendant posits that because “this is a DUII case, the implied consent statute, ORS 813.131, establishes the foundational requirements for the admission of evidence, not the more general evidence statute[.”
State v. Tripathi, 204 P.3d 134 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 22× “” “It was the legislature’s intent,” the state asserts, “that if the foundational requirements of ORS 813.131 were satisfied, the evidence would be admitted at trial,” regardless of what the evidence code might otherwise require.”
State v. Jayne, 24 P.3d 920 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 7× “Given our conclusion that the urinalysis evidence was not relevant to the DUII charge, there is no need to address the question whether ORS 813.131 (1997) would have required suppression of the evidence.”
State v. Bayer, 211 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “In fact, ORS 813.131 is not referred to in our opinion in that case.”
State v. Ritz, 399 P.3d 421 (Or. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” ORS 813.131(1). And an officer may request a urine sample only if the officer has specific training in recognizing drug-impaired driving and has reasonable suspicion that the defendant engaged in drug-impaired driving.”
State v. Moody, 116 P.3d 935 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “At best, defendant argued, the urinalysis showed that he had used methamphetamine and marijuana at some time before the accident. Therefore, according to defendant, because of the minimal probative value and high potential for prejudice, the urinalysis evidence should be…”
State v. Cabanilla, 273 P.3d 125 (Or. 2012).
· cites it 2× “100, or refuses a urine test under ORS 813.131 and 813.132, the person is subject to a fine of at least $500 and not more than $1,000.”
State v. Moore, 269 P.3d 72 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “100(1) and ORS 813.131(1).” In support of that contention, the state raises essentially the same arguments that were addressed by this court in Machuca I — many of which were articulated in the dissenting opinion in that case.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.131(1) — 9 cases
State v. Moore, 318 P.3d 1133 (Or. 2013).
“132, “a refusal to take a urine test requested under ORS 813.131 shall be treated for all purposes as a refusal to take a breath test.”
State v. Moore, 269 P.3d 72 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“100(1) and ORS 813.131(1).” In support of that contention, the state raises essentially the same arguments that were addressed by this court in Machuca I — many of which were articulated in the dissenting opinion in that case.”
State v. Ritz, 399 P.3d 421 (Or. 2017).
“” ORS 813.131(1). And an officer may request a urine sample only if the officer has specific training in recognizing drug-impaired driving and has reasonable suspicion that the defendant engaged in drug-impaired driving.”
State v. Fong, 204 P.3d 146 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“) Defendant posits that because “this is a DUII case, the implied consent statute, ORS 813.131, establishes the foundational requirements for the admission of evidence, not the more general evidence statute[.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.131(2) — 4 cases
State v. Ritz, 399 P.3d 421 (Or. 2017).
“” ORS 813.131(1). And an officer may request a urine sample only if the officer has specific training in recognizing drug-impaired driving and has reasonable suspicion that the defendant engaged in drug-impaired driving.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.131(3) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.131(4) — 12 cases
State v. Chipman, 31 P.3d 478 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“The state further argues that, even if the statute was violated, ORS 813.131 does not require the exclusion of the results, because ORS 136.”
State v. Bayer, 211 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“In fact, ORS 813.131 is not referred to in our opinion in that case.”
State v. Jayne, 24 P.3d 920 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“Given our conclusion that the urinalysis evidence was not relevant to the DUII charge, there is no need to address the question whether ORS 813.131 (1997) would have required suppression of the evidence.”
State v. Fong, 204 P.3d 146 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“) Defendant posits that because “this is a DUII case, the implied consent statute, ORS 813.131, establishes the foundational requirements for the admission of evidence, not the more general evidence statute[.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.131(5) — 1 case
State v. Thomas (A173467), 524 P.3d 969 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“In rejecting the state’s argument that UAs were categorically admissible under the version of ORS 813.131 in effect at the time, we noted that “ORS 813.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.131(l)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.131(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Moore, 318 P.3d 1133 (Or. 2013).
“132, “a refusal to take a urine test requested under ORS 813.131 shall be treated for all purposes as a refusal to take a breath test.”
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.