Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.136

Consequence of refusal or failure to submit to field sobriety tests

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

      813.136 Consequence of refusal or failure to submit to field sobriety tests. If a person refuses or fails to physically submit to field sobriety tests as required by ORS 813.135 after the person has been informed of the consequences of refusing to submit, evidence of the person’s refusal or failure to physically submit is admissible in any criminal or civil action or proceeding arising out of allegations that the person was driving while under the influence of intoxicants. [1989 c.576 §14; 2019 c.475 §6]

 

CHEMICAL TESTS; METHODS AND REQUIREMENTS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: State v. Fish
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Tschida (2025) orctapp · cites it 4× “135 and ORS 813.136, [the deputy’s] failure to advise defendant of the consequences of his refusal rendered his refusal inadmissi- ble.”
State v. Hamilton (2024) orctapp · cites it 2× “Before 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 under ORS 813.136.” 268 State v.”
State v. Stills (2019) orctapp “135 and ORS 813.136, inform him of the consequences of refusing to perform the FSTs; and (3) his refusal was an assertion of his right under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution to refuse consent to a warrantless search and must be suppressed.”
State v. Eskie (2016) orctapp · cites it 19× “135, that his refusal to perform nontestimonial FSTs would be admissible at trial pursuant to ORS 813.136, the court was obligated to exclude evidence of that refusal.”
State v. Mazzola (2015) or · cites it 3× “Before 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 under ORS 813.136.” *821 ORS 813.”
State v. Mazzola (2015) or · cites it 3× “Before 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 under ORS 813.136.” Cite as <a href="/opinion/2784275/state-v-mazzola/" aria-description="Citation for case:…”
State v. Adame (2014) orctapp · cites it 6× “135 provides that, “[b]efore 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 under ORS 813.136.” (Emphasis added.”
State v. Cabanilla (2012) or · cites it 6× “135 provides that a driver is deemed to have consented to submit to field sobriety tests, but “[blefore 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 under ORS…”
State v. Greenough (2007) orctapp “Similarly, under ORS 813.136, evidence of a refusal to submit to field sobriety tests “is admissible in any criminal or civil action or proceeding arising out of allegations that the person was driving while under the influence of intoxicants.”
State v. Forrest (2001) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 813.136. Defendant then performed, and failed, each of those tests.”
State v. Rohrs (1998) orctapp · cites it 8× “Before 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 under ORS 813.136." ORS 813.136 establishes the consequences of refusing or failing to submit to the tests: "If a…”
Walls v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services (1998) orctapp · cites it 2× “See ORS 813.136. Janzen administered four field sobriety tests, all of which indicated to Janzen that Walls was under the influence of alcohol.”
Show all 42 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.