Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410 (2026)

Suspension upon receipt of police report on implied consent test; hearing; validity of suspension; appeal; rules

✓ current as of May 2026

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

813.410 Suspension upon receipt of police report on implied consent test; hearing; validity of suspension; appeal; rules. (1) If the Department of Transportation receives from a police officer a report that is in substantial compliance with ORS 813.120, the department shall suspend the driving privileges of the person in this state on the 30th day after the date of arrest or, if the report indicates that the person failed a blood test, on the 60th day after receipt of the report, unless, at a hearing described under this section, the department determines that the suspension would not be valid as described in this section. A suspension of driving privileges imposed under this subsection shall be for a period of time established under ORS 813.420.

(2) If the department receives from a police officer a report under ORS 813.120 and the person holds commercial driving privileges and the person was driving a motor vehicle or commercial motor vehicle and refused to submit to a test under ORS 813.100 or the person was driving a commercial motor vehicle and submitted to a breath or blood test and the person’s blood, as shown by the test, had 0.04 percent or more by weight of alcohol, the department shall suspend the person’s commercial driving privileges on the 30th day after the date of arrest or, if the report indicates that the person failed a blood test, on the 60th day after receipt of the report, unless, at a hearing described under this section, the department determines that the suspension would not be valid as described in this section. A commercial driving privileges suspension imposed under this subsection shall be for a period of time established under ORS 809.510 or 809.520.

(3) If the department receives from a police officer a report under ORS 813.120 and the person holds commercial driving privileges and the person was driving a motor vehicle that is not a commercial motor vehicle and submitted to a breath or blood test and the person’s blood, as shown by the test, had 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol, the department shall suspend the person’s commercial driving privileges on the 30th day after the date of arrest or, if the report indicates that the person failed a blood test, on the 60th day after receipt of the report, unless, at a hearing described under this section, the department determines that the suspension would not be valid as described in this section. A commercial driving privileges suspension imposed under this subsection shall be for a period of time established under ORS 809.510 or 809.520.

(4) If within 10 days from the date of arrest, or, if the person fails a blood test, within 10 days from the date the department sends notice of suspension, the department receives a request for a hearing from a person whose driving privileges or commercial driving privileges the department proposes to suspend under this section, the department shall provide a hearing in accordance with this section. The person shall request a hearing in the form and manner prescribed by the department by rule. Except as otherwise provided under this section, a hearing held by the department under this section is subject to the provisions for contested cases, other than appeal provisions, under ORS chapter 183. The applicable appeal provisions are as provided under ORS 813.450 and section 24, chapter 672, Oregon Laws 1985. Notwithstanding ORS 809.430, the department is not required to give any notice of intent to suspend or suspension in addition to that provided under ORS 813.100.

(5) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a hearing required by this section is subject to all of the following:

(a) The hearing shall be conducted by an administrative law judge assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings established under ORS 183.605.

(b) The administrative law judge shall conduct the hearing by telephone or other two-way electronic communication device.

(d) A person who requests a hearing under this section and who fails, without just cause, to appear personally or through an attorney waives the right to a hearing. If a person waives a right to a hearing under this paragraph, the department is not required to make any showing at hearing.

(e) Except as provided in ORS 813.440 or upon remand under ORS 813.450, the department shall hold the hearing and issue a final order within 30 days of the date of the arrest or, if the person fails a blood test, within 60 days from the date the department received the report of the failure.

(f) In connection with the hearing, the department or its authorized representative may administer oaths and shall issue subpoenas for the appearance of witnesses by telephone or other two-way electronic communication device at the hearing requested by the person or the department and the production of relevant documents.

(g) The hearing shall be recorded by whatever means may be determined by the department and shall include testimony and exhibits, if any. The record of the proceedings may not be transcribed unless requested by a party to the proceeding.

(6) Subject to subsection (7) of this section:

(a) A person or a police officer may request that a hearing required by this section be conducted in person.

(b) The department, by rule, shall establish the manner and time limitation requirements by which a person or a police officer may request that a hearing be conducted in person.

(c) Unless there is an agreement between the person and the department that the hearing be conducted elsewhere, a hearing requested under this subsection shall be held either in the county where the alleged offense occurred or at any place within 100 miles of the place where the offense is alleged to have occurred, as established by the department by rule.

(d) In connection with the hearing, the department or its authorized representative may administer oaths and shall issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses at the hearing requested under this subsection by the person and the production of relevant documents.

(7) The chief administrative law judge may require that a hearing required by this section be conducted by telephone or other two-way electronic communication device when the judge determines that a hearing conducted in person would pose a significant risk to health or safety, including risks associated with travel to the hearing location.

(8) This subsection shall be narrowly construed so as to effect the legislative purpose of limiting the scope of hearings under this section. The scope of a hearing under this section shall be limited to whether the suspension is valid as described in this subsection. A suspension under this section is valid if all of the following requirements have been met:

(a) The person, at the time the person was requested to submit to a test under ORS 813.100, was under arrest for driving while under the influence of intoxicants in violation of ORS 813.010 or a municipal ordinance.

(b) The police had reasonable grounds to believe, at the time the request was made, that the person arrested had been driving under the influence of intoxicants in violation of ORS 813.010 or of a municipal ordinance.

(c) The person refused a test under ORS 813.100, or took a breath or blood test and the test disclosed that the level of alcohol in the person’s blood at the time of the test was:

(A) 0.08 percent or more by weight if the person was not driving a commercial motor vehicle;

(B) 0.04 percent or more by weight if the person was driving a commercial motor vehicle; or

(d) If the report under ORS 813.120 indicates that the person was driving a commercial motor vehicle, the vehicle was in fact a commercial motor vehicle as defined in ORS 801.208.

(e) The person had been informed under ORS 813.100 of rights and consequences as described under ORS 813.130.

(f) The person was given written notice required under ORS 813.100.

(g) If the person arrested submitted to a test under ORS 813.100, the person administering the test was qualified to administer the test under ORS 813.160.

(h) If the person arrested submitted to a test under ORS 813.100, the methods, procedures and equipment used in the test complied with requirements under ORS 813.160.

(9) A suspension imposed under this section shall remain in effect pending any appeal or remand of a final order issued under this section and there shall be no stay of the suspension pending appeal or remand.

(10) Unless a person fails, without just cause, to appear personally or through an attorney at a hearing requested under this section, a person shall have the right to appeal any final order by the department after a hearing under this section by filing a petition. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) The person shall file the petition in the circuit court for the county where the person resides or, if the person does not reside in Oregon, in the circuit court of the county in which the arrest took place within 30 days after issuance of the final order of the department.

(b) The court upon receipt of the petition shall set the matter for hearing upon 10 days’ notice to the department and the petitioner unless hearing is waived by both the department and the petitioner. [1983 c.338 §358; 1985 c.16 §167; 1985 c.672 §13; 1987 c.158 §170; 1989 c.636 §44; 1991 c.860 §11; 1993 c.305 §6; 1993 c.600 §1; 1995 c.568 §6; 1999 c.831 §2; 1999 c.849 §§193,194; 2003 c.75 §67; 2005 c.649 §27; 2007 c.288 §18; 2010 c.37 §1; 2013 c.237 §29; 2019 c.312 §22; 2021 c.302 §1; 2021 c.630 §118]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 111 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 875 P.2d 463 (Or. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 875 P.2d 463 (Or. 1994). · cites it 35× “A reading of ORS 813.410 and other related statutes also suggests that MVD’s interpretation is correct.”

Bianco v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 307 P.3d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 38× “Consequently, OAH issued an order stating that “[a] hearing shall be scheduled to determine the validity of the suspension under ORS 813.410 as soon as practicable.” The order also rescinded the proposed suspension of petitioner’s driving privileges pending the outcome of that…”

State v. Spencer, 750 P.2d 147 (Or. 1988). · cites it 6× “ORS 813.410. The legislature has provided in detail the advice to be given and the consequences of failure to advise.”

State v. MacHuca, 218 P.3d 145 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “300, the person's driving privileges are subject to suspension under ORS 813.410 and the police officer shall do all of the following: "(a) Immediately take custody of any driver license or permit issued by this state to the person to grant driving privileges.”

Supension of Driving Privileges of Cole v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 87 P.3d 1120 (Or. 2004). · cites it 5× “Cole sought judicial review pursuant to ORS 813.410 and ORS 813.450. 9 He argued that the hearing officer’s finding that he had been stopped lawfully was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.”

Suspension of the Driving Privileges of Gaylord v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 391 P.3d 900 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “ORS 813.410. The scope of that hearing is prescribed by ORS 813.”

State v. Eumana-moranchel, 277 P.3d 549 (Or. 2012). · cites it 4× “08 percent or more constitutes being under the influence of intoxicating liquor], the person's driving privileges are subject to suspension under ORS 813.410 and the police officer shall [take certain enumerated actions.”

State v. Trenary, 836 P.2d 739 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “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.”

Blackman v. Motor Vehs. Div., 752 P.2d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 7× “ORS 813.410. He requested a hearing under ORS 813.”

Svidenko v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 267 P.3d 200 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 12× “010(3) (criminal); ORS 813.410 (civil). Following the arrest, DMV provided petitioner with a copy of the Implied Consent Combined Report and Notice of Intent to Suspend, which advised petitioner that his driving privileges would be administratively suspended effective the…”

State v. Milligan, 748 P.2d 130 (Or. 1988). · cites it 2× “010 [driving under the influence of intoxicants] or a similar municipal ordinance in proceedings under ORS 813.410." Because the present case is not a prosecution for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.”

Coulter v. Oregon Dep't of Transp., Driver & Motor Veh. Servs., 4 P.3d 89 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 25× “ORS 813.410. Although this is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court, we review DMV's order.”

Show all 111 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(1) — 23 cases

State v. Rafeh, 393 P.3d 1155 (Or. 2017).

Bianco v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 307 P.3d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Consequently, OAH issued an order stating that “[a] hearing shall be scheduled to determine the validity of the suspension under ORS 813.410 as soon as practicable.” The order also rescinded the proposed suspension of petitioner’s driving privileges pending the outcome of that…”

Supension of Driving Privileges of Cole v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 87 P.3d 1120 (Or. 2004). “Cole sought judicial review pursuant to ORS 813.410 and ORS 813.450. 9 He argued that the hearing officer’s finding that he had been stopped lawfully was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.”

Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 875 P.2d 463 (Or. 1994). “A reading of ORS 813.410 and other related statutes also suggests that MVD’s interpretation is correct.”

Hays v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 216 P.3d 902 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(2) — 7 cases

Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 875 P.2d 463 (Or. 1994). “A reading of ORS 813.410 and other related statutes also suggests that MVD’s interpretation is correct.”

Blackman v. Motor Vehs. Div., 752 P.2d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “ORS 813.410. He requested a hearing under ORS 813.”

Bish v. Motor Vehs. Div., 776 P.2d 1320 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

Carney v. Motor Vehs. Div., 786 P.2d 1319 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 857 P.2d 144 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(3) — 15 cases

Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 875 P.2d 463 (Or. 1994). “A reading of ORS 813.410 and other related statutes also suggests that MVD’s interpretation is correct.”

Svidenko v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 267 P.3d 200 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “010(3) (criminal); ORS 813.410 (civil). Following the arrest, DMV provided petitioner with a copy of the Implied Consent Combined Report and Notice of Intent to Suspend, which advised petitioner that his driving privileges would be administratively suspended effective the…”

Suspension of the Driving Privileges of Hause v. Motor Vehs. Div., 873 P.2d 374 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(3)(a) — 1 case

State v. Kambra, 761 P.2d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(4) — 8 cases

Pooler v. Motor Vehs. Div., 746 P.2d 716 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Higgins v. Motor Vehs. Div., 911 P.2d 950 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

Nash v. DMV, 344 Or. App. 283 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

State ex rel. Motor Vehs. Div.. v. Norblad, 882 P.2d 598 (Or. 1994).

Tew v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 40 P.3d 551 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(4)(a) — 2 cases

Bish v. Motor Vehs. Div., 776 P.2d 1320 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(4)(b) — 1 case

Wood v. Motor Vehs. Div., 763 P.2d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(4)(e) — 3 cases

Grossman v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 54 P.3d 629 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Johnson v. Driver & Motor Vehs. Servs. Div., 322 P.3d 1157 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(4)(f) — 2 cases

Cole v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 17 P.3d 573 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Coulter v. Oregon Dep't of Transp., Driver & Motor Veh. Servs., 4 P.3d 89 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “ORS 813.410. Although this is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court, we review DMV's order.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(5) — 11 cases

Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 875 P.2d 463 (Or. 1994). “A reading of ORS 813.410 and other related statutes also suggests that MVD’s interpretation is correct.”

Hays v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs., 209 P.3d 405 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

State v. Krueger, 12 P.3d 53 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

Pierce v. Motor Vehs. Div., 864 P.2d 1355 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(5)(a) — 3 cases

T.M.M. v. Lake Oswego Sch. Dist., 108 P.3d 1211 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Oviedo v. Motor Vehs. Div., 792 P.2d 1244 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Merrifield v. Motor Vehs. Div., 807 P.2d 329 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(5)(b) — 2 cases

Pierce v. Motor Vehs. Div., 864 P.2d 1355 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 857 P.2d 144 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(5)(c) — 6 cases

Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 875 P.2d 463 (Or. 1994). “A reading of ORS 813.410 and other related statutes also suggests that MVD’s interpretation is correct.”

T.M.M. v. Lake Oswego Sch. Dist., 108 P.3d 1211 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 857 P.2d 144 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(5)(e) — 3 cases

State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Hays v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 216 P.3d 902 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Murdoch v. DMV, 492 P.3d 89 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(5)(g) — 3 cases

Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 875 P.2d 463 (Or. 1994). “A reading of ORS 813.410 and other related statutes also suggests that MVD’s interpretation is correct.”

Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 857 P.2d 144 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Lawrie v. Motor Vehs. Div., 895 P.2d 790 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(5)(h) — 1 case

State v. Norman, 125 P.3d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(6) — 5 cases

Suspension of the Driving Privileges of Gaylord v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 391 P.3d 900 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “ORS 813.410. The scope of that hearing is prescribed by ORS 813.”

Blackman v. Motor Vehs. Div., 752 P.2d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “ORS 813.410. He requested a hearing under ORS 813.”

Angeney v. DMV, 490 P.3d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Ranger v. Motor Vehs. Div., 856 P.2d 1050 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Murdoch v. DMV, 519 P.3d 115 (Or. 2022).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(6)(c) — 1 case

Nelson v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. (In re Nelson), 447 P.3d 1212 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(6)(e) — 2 cases

Murdoch v. DMV, 519 P.3d 115 (Or. 2022).

Angeney v. DMV, 490 P.3d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(7) — 9 cases

Owens v. Motor Vehs. Div., 875 P.2d 463 (Or. 1994). “A reading of ORS 813.410 and other related statutes also suggests that MVD’s interpretation is correct.”

Bergstrom v. Motor Vehs. Div., 799 P.2d 673 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

State ex rel. Motor Vehs. Div.. v. Norblad, 882 P.2d 598 (Or. 1994).

Tidwell v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 242 P.3d 647 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Hays v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs., 209 P.3d 405 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(7)(a) — 3 cases

State v. Krueger, 12 P.3d 53 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

Altree v. Motor Vehs. Div., 865 P.2d 441 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Grossman v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 54 P.3d 629 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(8) — 2 cases

Walker v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Div., 295 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

Johnson v. Driver & Motor Vehs. Servs. Div., 322 P.3d 1157 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.410(8)(a) — 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.