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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.160 (2026)

Methods of conducting chemical analyses; duties of Department of State Police; reports; costs

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

      813.160 Methods of conducting chemical analyses; duties of Department of State Police; reports; costs. (1) A chemical analysis is valid under ORS 813.300 if:

      (a) It is an analysis of a person’s blood for alcohol content and is performed in:

      (A) A laboratory certified or accredited under 42 C.F.R. part 493 and approved for toxicology testing;

      (B) A laboratory certified under ORS 438.040 and approved for toxicology testing; or

      (C) A forensic laboratory established by the Department of State Police under ORS 181A.150 that is accredited by a national forensic accrediting organization.

      (b) It is an analysis of a person’s breath and is performed by an individual possessing a valid permit to perform chemical analyses issued by the Department of State Police and is performed according to methods approved by the Department of State Police. For purposes of this paragraph, the Department of State Police shall do all of the following:

      (A) Approve methods of performing chemical analyses of a person’s breath.

      (B) Prepare manuals and conduct courses throughout the state for the training of police officers in chemical analyses of a person’s breath, which courses shall include, but are not limited to, approved methods of chemical analyses, use of approved equipment and interpretation of test results together with a written examination on these subjects.

      (C) Test and certify the accuracy of equipment to be used by police officers for chemical analyses of a person’s breath before regular use of the equipment and periodically thereafter at intervals of not more than 90 days. Tests and certification required by this subparagraph must be conducted by trained technicians. Certification under this subparagraph does not require a signed document.

      (D) Ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals to conduct chemical analyses in accordance with one or more methods approved by the department.

      (E) Issue permits to individuals according to their qualifications. Permits may be issued to police officers only upon satisfactory completion of the prescribed training course and written examination. A permit must state the methods and equipment that the police officer is qualified to use. Permits are subject to termination or revocation at the discretion of the Department of State Police.

      (2) In conducting a chemical test of the blood, only a duly licensed physician, a phlebotomist or a person acting under the direction or control of a duly licensed physician may withdraw blood or pierce human tissue. A licensed physician, a phlebotomist or a qualified person acting under the direction or control of a duly licensed physician, is not civilly liable for withdrawing any bodily substance, in a medically acceptable manner, at the request of a peace officer.

      (3) An individual who performs a chemical analysis of breath or blood under ORS 813.100 or 813.140 shall prepare and sign a written report of the findings of the test that must include the identification of the police officer upon whose request the test was administered.

      (4) Any individual having custody of the report mentioned in subsection (3) of this section shall, upon request of the person tested, furnish that person or that person’s attorney, a copy of the report.

      (5) The expense of conducting a chemical test as provided by ORS 813.100 or 813.140 must be paid by the governmental unit on whose equipment the test is conducted or by the governmental unit upon whose request the test was administered if no governmental unit’s equipment is used to conduct the test.

      (6) As used in this section, “phlebotomist” means a person who has been trained in phlebotomy by an academic or medical institution. [1983 c.338 §173; 1985 c.16 §57; 1985 c.337 §2; 1995 c.351 §1; 2003 c.19 §1; 2025 c.375 §4; 2025 c.624 §40]

 

PLEA AGREEMENT

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: State v. Snyder, 97 P.3d 1181 (Or. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Snyder, 97 P.3d 1181 (Or. 2004). · cites it 44× “320(2)(a) creates an exception to the specifications for blood alcohol tests otherwise required by ORS 813.160 (1999), amended by Oregon Laws 2003, chapter 19, section 1.”
State v. Warner, 47 P.3d 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 23× “Because the problem is one of statutory interpretation, we begin by examining the text and context of ORS 813.160. See PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993).”
Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 875 P.2d 463 (Or. 1994). · cites it 14× “e issue presented in this case is whether the accuracy of the result of a chemical breath test administered to determine the blood alcohol content of a driver, who has been arrested for driving a commercial motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), may be…”
State v. Balderson, 910 P.2d 1138 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 20× “ORS 813.160 says, in pertinent part: "(1) To be valid under ORS 813.”
State v. Owens, 139 P.3d 984 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 15× “160(2), the ORS 813.160(1) requirement to test a blood sample in a qualified laboratory is a foundational rule of evidence because it expressly implicates the validity of the *35 analysis.”
State v. West, 279 P.3d 354 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 11× “OAR 257-030-0110 sets forth the criteria for approval of breath testing equipment: “Any instrument or equipment to be used for the testing of a person’s breath to determine the alcohol content of the blood may be approved by the Oregon State Police if one or more of the…”
State v. Snyder, 69 P.3d 802 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 15× “On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the chemical analysis of his blood because the state was required, but failed, to prove that the evidence satisfied the foundational requirements established by ORS 813.160. 3 That statute provides,…”
State v. Norman, 125 P.3d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “At trial in June 2003, the state offered into evidence two documents certifying that the breath test machine had been tested for accuracy on January 14 and March 31, 2003, and had been determined to comply with ORS 813.”
State v. Helgeson, 185 P.3d 545 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “320 provides an exception to the specific requirements set out in ORS 813.160.” The court held “that, in enacting [ORS 813.”
State v. Rumler, 110 P.3d 115 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Here, everyone — the parties and the trial court— understood that the “issue” (in Hitz terms) was whether Rockwell’s testimony and the related exhibits established the admissibility under ORS 813.160 and OAR 257-030-0070 of the Intoxilyzer 5000 test results.”
State v. Snuggerud, 956 P.2d 1015 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 9× “In the second assignment, the state argues that the court erred in concluding that the state failed to prove compliance with ORS 813.160-(l)(b)(C), which requires that trained technicians periodically certify the accuracy of Intoxilyzer equipment.”
State v. McVay, 731 P.2d 466 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “The state contends that OAR 257-30-020(1)(b) (promulgated pursuant to ORS 813.160) does not mandate that the test operator be the person to conduct the observation.”
Show all 59 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.160(1) — 24 cases
State v. West, 279 P.3d 354 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “OAR 257-030-0110 sets forth the criteria for approval of breath testing equipment: “Any instrument or equipment to be used for the testing of a person’s breath to determine the alcohol content of the blood may be approved by the Oregon State Police if one or more of the…”
State v. Owens, 139 P.3d 984 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “160(2), the ORS 813.160(1) requirement to test a blood sample in a qualified laboratory is a foundational rule of evidence because it expressly implicates the validity of the *35 analysis.”
State v. Martin, 477 P.3d 452 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Snyder, 97 P.3d 1181 (Or. 2004). “320(2)(a) creates an exception to the specifications for blood alcohol tests otherwise required by ORS 813.160 (1999), amended by Oregon Laws 2003, chapter 19, section 1.”
State v. Warner, 47 P.3d 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “Because the problem is one of statutory interpretation, we begin by examining the text and context of ORS 813.160. See PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.160(1)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Snyder, 97 P.3d 1181 (Or. 2004). “320(2)(a) creates an exception to the specifications for blood alcohol tests otherwise required by ORS 813.160 (1999), amended by Oregon Laws 2003, chapter 19, section 1.”
State v. Snyder, 69 P.3d 802 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the chemical analysis of his blood because the state was required, but failed, to prove that the evidence satisfied the foundational requirements established by ORS 813.160. 3 That statute provides,…”
State v. Miller, 796 P.2d 1253 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Broyles, 765 P.2d 239 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.160(1)(b) — 7 cases
State v. Balderson, 910 P.2d 1138 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “ORS 813.160 says, in pertinent part: "(1) To be valid under ORS 813.”
State v. Tynon, 955 P.2d 250 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. McVay, 731 P.2d 466 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “The state contends that OAR 257-30-020(1)(b) (promulgated pursuant to ORS 813.160) does not mandate that the test operator be the person to conduct the observation.”
State v. True, 527 P.3d 42 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Allen, 802 P.2d 690 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.160(1)(b)(A) — 1 case
State v. Barletta, 71 P.3d 166 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.160(1)(b)(C) — 2 cases
Lake v. Motor Vehs. Div., 892 P.2d 1025 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Buche, 742 P.2d 1196 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.160(2) — 6 cases
State v. Warner, 47 P.3d 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “Because the problem is one of statutory interpretation, we begin by examining the text and context of ORS 813.160. See PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993).”
State v. Owens, 139 P.3d 984 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “160(2), the ORS 813.160(1) requirement to test a blood sample in a qualified laboratory is a foundational rule of evidence because it expressly implicates the validity of the *35 analysis.”
State v. Bloom, 172 P.3d 663 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Portulano, 514 P.3d 93 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Hale, 721 P.2d 887 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.160(3) — 1 case
State v. Hemkin, 792 P.2d 483 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.160(b)(0) — 1 case
Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 875 P.2d 463 (Or. 1994). “e issue presented in this case is whether the accuracy of the result of a chemical breath test administered to determine the blood alcohol content of a driver, who has been arrested for driving a commercial motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), may be…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.160(l)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Snyder, 97 P.3d 1181 (Or. 2004). “320(2)(a) creates an exception to the specifications for blood alcohol tests otherwise required by ORS 813.160 (1999), amended by Oregon Laws 2003, chapter 19, section 1.”
State v. Snyder, 69 P.3d 802 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the chemical analysis of his blood because the state was required, but failed, to prove that the evidence satisfied the foundational requirements established by ORS 813.160. 3 That statute provides,…”
State v. Tripathi, 204 P.3d 134 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.160(l)(b) — 13 cases
State v. Balderson, 910 P.2d 1138 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “ORS 813.160 says, in pertinent part: "(1) To be valid under ORS 813.”
State v. Rumler, 110 P.3d 115 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Here, everyone — the parties and the trial court— understood that the “issue” (in Hitz terms) was whether Rockwell’s testimony and the related exhibits established the admissibility under ORS 813.160 and OAR 257-030-0070 of the Intoxilyzer 5000 test results.”
State v. Tynon, 955 P.2d 250 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Snuggerud, 956 P.2d 1015 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “In the second assignment, the state argues that the court erred in concluding that the state failed to prove compliance with ORS 813.160-(l)(b)(C), which requires that trained technicians periodically certify the accuracy of Intoxilyzer equipment.”
State v. West, 279 P.3d 354 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “OAR 257-030-0110 sets forth the criteria for approval of breath testing equipment: “Any instrument or equipment to be used for the testing of a person’s breath to determine the alcohol content of the blood may be approved by the Oregon State Police if one or more of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.160(l)(b)(C) — 7 cases
State v. Norman, 125 P.3d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “At trial in June 2003, the state offered into evidence two documents certifying that the breath test machine had been tested for accuracy on January 14 and March 31, 2003, and had been determined to comply with ORS 813.”
State v. Bergin, 217 P.3d 1087 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Acosta, 827 P.2d 1368 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Snuggerud, 956 P.2d 1015 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “In the second assignment, the state argues that the court erred in concluding that the state failed to prove compliance with ORS 813.160-(l)(b)(C), which requires that trained technicians periodically certify the accuracy of Intoxilyzer equipment.”
Lake v. Motor Vehs. Div., 892 P.2d 1025 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.160(l)(b)(E) — 2 cases
Fleming v. Motor Vehs. Div., 743 P.2d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
State v. Schaff, 57 P.3d 907 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
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.