Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.320

Effect of implied consent law on evidence

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

      813.320 Effect of implied consent law on evidence. (1) The provisions of the implied consent law, except ORS 813.300, shall not be construed by any court to limit the introduction of otherwise competent, relevant evidence in any civil action, suit or proceedings or in any criminal action other than a violation of ORS 813.010 or a similar municipal ordinance in proceedings under ORS 813.410.

      (2) The provisions of the implied consent law shall not be construed by any court to limit the introduction of otherwise competent, relevant evidence of the amount of alcohol in the blood of a defendant in a prosecution for driving while under the influence of intoxicants. [1983 c.338 §596; 1985 c.16 §302; 1999 c.437 §1; 2019 c.475 §9]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1986–2017 · leading case: State v. Snyder
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Snyder (2004) or · cites it 37× “ORS 813.320 provides, in part: “(1) The provisions of the implied consent law, except ORS 813.”
State v. Trenary (1992) orctapp · cites it 16× “010 or a similar municipal ordinance in proceedings under ORS 813.410." ORS 813.320 controls the admissibility of breath test results under the Implied Consent Law.”
State v. Moylett (1992) or · cites it 6× “ORS 813.320 provides: "The provisions of the implied consent law, except ORS 813.”
State v. Snyder (2003) orctapp · cites it 12× “ORS 813.320 provides, in part: “(2) The provisions of the implied consent law shall not be construed by any court to limit the introduction of otherwise competent, relevant evidence of the amount of alcohol in the blood of a defendant in a prosecution for driving while under the…”
State v. Cromb (2008) orctapp · cites it 3× “The court adopted the state’s theory that (1) defendant had no protected privacy interest in the hospital emergency room and, thus, Johnson’s entry into the area where defendant was being treated and the observations that he made there did not constitute a search under the…”
State v. Helgeson (2008) orctapp · cites it 4× “Snyder, 337 Or 410, 421 , 97 P3d 1181 (2004), the Supreme Court addressed “[w]hether ORS 813.320 provides an exception to the specific requirements set out in ORS 813.”
State v. Milligan (1988) or · cites it 2× “ORS 813.320 provides: "The provisions of the implied consent law, except ORS 813.”
State v. Cabanilla (2012) or · cites it 3× “” Defendant contends that that conclusion is bolstered by the implication in ORS 813.320 that a violation of the implied *632 consent law is grounds to exclude otherwise competent evidence in a criminal action for a violation of ORS 813.”
State v. Ritz (2017) or · cites it 2× “”); ORS 813.320 (2)(b) (“The provisions of the implied consent law shall not be construed by any court to limit the introduction of otherwise competent, relevant evidence of the amount of alcohol in the blood of a defendant in a prosecution for driving while under the influence…”
State v. Bloom (2007) orctapp · cites it 3× “130 when they misinformed him about the amount of the fine that he faced for refusing to take a breath test, and, (2) consequently, that ORS 813.320(1) requires the court to suppress the test result.”
State v. Kirsch (2007) orctapp “Creson, 33 Or App 369, 372 , 576 P2d 814 (1978) (concluding that, as a matter of negative implication, the statutory antecedent to the current ORS 813.320(1) precluded the admission in DUII trials of “[e]vidence obtained in violation of implied consent procedures”).”
State v. Siegel (2006) orctapp “The state also explained that the parties disputed whether the implied consent law, ORS 813.320, apphed to medical, as opposed to forensic, blood draws, an issue resolved by the Oregon Supreme Court on September 23, 2004, in State v.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.320(1) — 5 cases
State v. Bloom (2007) orctapp “130 when they misinformed him about the amount of the fine that he faced for refusing to take a breath test, and, (2) consequently, that ORS 813.320(1) requires the court to suppress the test result.”
State v. Snyder (2004) or “ORS 813.320 provides, in part: “(1) The provisions of the implied consent law, except ORS 813.”
State v. Kirsch (2007) orctapp “Creson, 33 Or App 369, 372 , 576 P2d 814 (1978) (concluding that, as a matter of negative implication, the statutory antecedent to the current ORS 813.320(1) precluded the admission in DUII trials of “[e]vidence obtained in violation of implied consent procedures”).”
State v. Dinsmore (2005) orctapp
State v. Snyder (2003) orctapp “ORS 813.320 provides, in part: “(2) The provisions of the implied consent law shall not be construed by any court to limit the introduction of otherwise competent, relevant evidence of the amount of alcohol in the blood of a defendant in a prosecution for driving while under the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.320(2) — 4 cases
State v. Snyder (2004) or “ORS 813.320 provides, in part: “(1) The provisions of the implied consent law, except ORS 813.”
State v. Snyder (2003) orctapp “ORS 813.320 provides, in part: “(2) The provisions of the implied consent law shall not be construed by any court to limit the introduction of otherwise competent, relevant evidence of the amount of alcohol in the blood of a defendant in a prosecution for driving while under the…”
State v. Helgeson (2008) orctapp “Snyder, 337 Or 410, 421 , 97 P3d 1181 (2004), the Supreme Court addressed “[w]hether ORS 813.320 provides an exception to the specific requirements set out in ORS 813.”
State v. Shantie (2004) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.320(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Snyder (2004) or “ORS 813.320 provides, in part: “(1) The provisions of the implied consent law, except ORS 813.”
State v. Snyder (2003) orctapp “ORS 813.320 provides, in part: “(2) The provisions of the implied consent law shall not be construed by any court to limit the introduction of otherwise competent, relevant evidence of the amount of alcohol in the blood of a defendant in a prosecution for driving while under the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.320(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Ritz (2017) or “”); ORS 813.320 (2)(b) (“The provisions of the implied consent law shall not be construed by any court to limit the introduction of otherwise competent, relevant evidence of the amount of alcohol in the blood of a defendant in a prosecution for driving while under the influence…”
State v. Ritz (2017) or
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.