813.132
Consequences of refusing to take urine test; exception. (1) Except as otherwise provided
in this section, a refusal to submit to a urine test requested under ORS
813.131 shall be treated for all purposes as a refusal to submit to a breath
test. A suspension imposed for refusal to submit to a urine test under ORS
813.131 (2) shall be consecutive to any other suspension imposed under the
Motorist Implied Consent Law. If a person is subject to consecutive
suspensions, the length of time that must elapse before the Department of
Transportation may reinstate driving privileges or issue a hardship permit
under ORS 813.520 shall be doubled.
(2) If a person
refuses to submit to a urine test under ORS 813.131 (2), in addition to
information described in ORS 813.130, the person asked to take the test shall
be informed that if the person refuses to submit to the test, the person’s
driving privileges will be suspended for the same time period and with the same
consequences as if the person had refused to submit to the breath test and that
a suspension for refusal to submit to the urine test will be consecutive to any
other suspension under the Motorist Implied Consent Law.
(3)
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, no suspension of driving
privileges shall be imposed for refusal to submit to a urine test if the person
provides documentation from a physician licensed by this state showing that the
person has a medical condition that makes it impossible for the person to
provide a sample. [1995 c.676 §2; 1997 c.25 §3; 2019 c.475 §4]
Notes of Decisions
State v. Moore, 318 P.3d 1133 (Or. 2013).
“And, under ORS 813.132, “a refusal to take a urine test requested under ORS 813.”
State v. Koch, 341 P.3d 112 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“100(1) (requiring that, before a test is administered, “the person requested to take the test shall be informed of consequences and rights as described under ORS 813.130”); ORS 813.130 (setting out “rights and consequences” information that must be *334 disclosed under implied…”
State v. McMullen, 279 P.3d 367 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“08 percent blood alcohol); ORS 813.132 (consequences of refusal to take urine test include loss of driving privileges and a fine).”
State v. Raymond, 360 P.3d 734 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“” Because that ruling was predicated on the suppression of the urinalysis results, our disposition of the first assignment of error obviates any need to consider that matter.”
State v. Geren, 329 P.3d 785 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “131(1) (establishing circumstances in which a person is deemed to have consented to a urine test); ORS 813.132 (setting out consequences of refusing to take a urine test and information that must be disclosed before urine test is administered).”
State v. Swenson, 506 P.3d 489 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 7× “182, and ORS 813.132, the Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that driving with a suspended license after refusing to take a urine test incurs different consequences from refusal to take a breath or blood test.”
State v. Wieboldt, 320 P.3d 597 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “131, and ORS 813.132 about the economic harm and loss of privileges that would result if he refused.”
Robinson v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 80 P.3d 536 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“ORS 813.132. Petitioner argues that there is a necessary physical distinction between a person’s ability to provide a breath sample and the person’s ability to provide a urine sample.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.132(1) — 2 cases
State v. Swenson, 506 P.3d 489 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“182, and ORS 813.132, the Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that driving with a suspended license after refusing to take a urine test incurs different consequences from refusal to take a breath or blood test.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.132(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.132(3) — 1 case
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.