Murdoch v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles Servs. Div.

Under ORS 813.130 (2017), officers are required to inform drivers of the enumerated rights and consequences of refusing a breathalyzer and shall present the information “substantially in the form prepared by the Department of Transportation.” Additional explanation of legal consequences is not prohibited.

The Department of Motor Vehicles Services Division (DMV) appealed the vacation of Petitioner’s suspended license after an officer informed Petitioner they would get a warrant if Petitioner did not take a breathalyzer. The DMV assigned error to the lower court’s findings that the officer was legally unauthorized from informing Petitioner about the warrant. The DMV argued that by reading the DMV-approved implied-consent form May was fully advised of his rights and consequences under ORS 813.130 (2017). The Petitioner argued that the officer "modified the procedure" in ORS 813.130 (2017) when the officer informed Petitioner of the warrant because it was not listed under the statute. Under ORS 813.130 (2017), officers are required to inform drivers of the enumerated rights and consequences of refusing a breathalyzer and shall present the information “substantially in the form prepared by the Department of Transportation.” The Court reasoned that the statute’s purpose was to persuade drivers to consent to a breathalyzer and that providing information on another lawful consequence was within the purpose of the statute. Further, nothing in the legislative history suggests officers additional explanation of legal consequences should be prohibited. The court found the officer had informed Petitioner of the requisite information under ORS 813.130 (2017) fully advising him of his rights and consequences. Accordingly, the Court held that the officer had complied with the statute and the suspension of Petitioner’s license was lawful. Reversed.