Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 815.215 (2026)

Failure to have windshield wipers; exemptions; penalty

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

      815.215 Failure to have windshield wipers; exemptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to have windshield wipers if the person drives or moves on any highway or owns and causes or knowingly permits to be driven or moved on any highway a motor vehicle that has a windshield and that is not equipped with windshield wipers that meet the requirements under this section.

      (2) Windshield wipers meet the requirements of this section if the windshield wipers are designed for cleaning rain or other moisture from the windshield and so constructed as to be controlled or operated by the driver of the vehicle.

      (3) This section does not apply to the following vehicles:

      (a) Vehicles of special interest that are registered under ORS 805.020 and that are:

      (A) Equipped with original manufacturer’s equipment and accessories, or their equivalent, and that are maintained in safe operating condition; or

      (B) The vehicles are street rods that conform to ORS 815.107.

      (b) Road machinery, road rollers or farm tractors.

      (c) Antique vehicles that are maintained as collectors’ items and used for exhibitions, parades, club activities and similar uses, but not used primarily for the transportation of persons or property.

      (d) Motorcycles.

      (4) The offense described in this section, failure to have windshield wipers, is a Class C traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §489; 1997 c.402 §13; 2003 c.158 §14]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2023–2023 · leading case: State v. Rose, 537 P.3d 174 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Rose, 537 P.3d 174 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “We there- fore conclude that defendant’s Colorado conviction for DWAI is not a conviction involving “impaired driving,” as required by Oregon law under ORS 815.215(1)(a)(B). The trial court said that, alternatively, it would “exercise its discretion” to “deny the diversion…”
State v. Rose (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “We there- fore conclude that defendant’s Colorado conviction for DWAI is not a conviction involving “impaired driving,” as required by Oregon law under ORS 815.215(1)(a)(B). The trial court said that, alternatively, it would “exercise its discretion” to “deny the diversion…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 815.215(1)(a)(B) — 2 cases
State v. Rose, 537 P.3d 174 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “We there- fore conclude that defendant’s Colorado conviction for DWAI is not a conviction involving “impaired driving,” as required by Oregon law under ORS 815.215(1)(a)(B). The trial court said that, alternatively, it would “exercise its discretion” to “deny the diversion…”
State v. Rose (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “We there- fore conclude that defendant’s Colorado conviction for DWAI is not a conviction involving “impaired driving,” as required by Oregon law under ORS 815.215(1)(a)(B). The trial court said that, alternatively, it would “exercise its discretion” to “deny the diversion…”
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.