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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.135 (2026)

Implied consent to field sobriety tests

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

      813.135 Implied consent to field sobriety tests. Any person who operates a vehicle upon premises open to the 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 person has committed the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants in violation of ORS 813.010 or a municipal ordinance. If the person refuses to consent to field sobriety tests, the person shall be asked to provide only physical cooperation to submit to nontestimonial field sobriety tests, and the person shall be informed of the consequences of failing to physically submit to those tests under ORS 813.136. [1989 c.576 §15; 2019 c.475 §5]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: State v. Fish, 893 P.2d 1023 (Or. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Fish, 893 P.2d 1023 (Or. 1995). · cites it 57× “Defendant contends that the deputy failed to comply with ORS 813.135 and ORS 813.136 and that, therefore, evidence of defendant's refusal to perform field sobriety tests should be suppressed.”
State v. Trenary, 836 P.2d 739 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 47× “[2] ORS 813.135 provides, in part: "Before [field sobriety] tests are administered, the person requested to take the tests shall be informed of the consequences of refusing to take or failing to submit to the tests under ORS 813.”
State v. Trenary, 850 P.2d 356 (Or. 1993). · cites it 13× “” 1 ORS 813.135 states that, “[bjefore the tests are administered, the person requested to take the tests shall be informed of the consequences of refusing to take or failing to submit to the tests.”
State v. Nagel, 880 P.2d 451 (Or. 1994). · cites it 8× “136 (if a person refuses or fails to submit to field sobriety tests as required by ORS 813.135, evidence of the refusal is admissible in any proceeding arising from allegations that the person was driving while intoxicated).”
State v. Cabanilla, 273 P.3d 125 (Or. 2012). · cites it 12× “In Fish , the court stated that “an officer’s advice of consequences complies with ORS 813.135 [driver impliedly consents to field sobriety tests] if it adequately informs the driver of the consequences of refusal so as to bring further pressure on the driver to perform the…”
Winroth v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs., 915 P.2d 991 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 20× “In 1989, the Oregon Legislature added ORS 813.135 and ORS 813.136 [4] to the "Implied Consent Law.”
State v. Mazzola, 345 P.3d 424 (Or. 2015). · cites it 4× “Our holding makes it unnecessary to consider the state’s alternative argument that defendant impliedly (as opposed to actually) consented to the administration of the FSTs under ORS 813.135. That statute provides: “Any person who operates a vehicle upon premises open to the…”
State v. Scott, 854 P.2d 991 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 14× “The state relies on the language in ORS 813.135 and in ORS 801.272 in support of its proposition that the legislature, subsequent to our decision in Reed , has approved the admission of the HGN test into evidence at trial without an evidentiary foundation.”
State v. Hamilton, 543 P.3d 704 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “3 In ORS 813.135 (2017), amended by Or Laws 2019, ch 475, § 5, the state argues that no such prohibition exists for FSTs.”
State v. Maddux, 925 P.2d 124 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “In addition, the officer there advised the defendant, pursuant to ORS 813.135 and ORS 813.136, that if he refused to submit to the field sobriety tests, that “ ‘evidence of the *38 refusal or failure is admissible in any criminal or civil action or proceeding arising out of the…”
State v. Lawrence, 843 P.2d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “*102 In defendant’s first assignment of error he contends that the field sobriety test statutes, ORS 813.135 and ORS 813.136, 1 are unconstitutional.”
State v. Rohrs, 970 P.2d 262 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “ORS 813.135 creates the obligation to submit to the tests: "Any person who operates a vehicle upon premises open to the 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…”
Show all 52 citing 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.