Call Now for an Appointment – 541.345.4500

IMG_6574

The Duvall Law Office represents individuals charged with criminal offenses throughout the state of Oregon. This includes offenses ranging from the Oregon Measure 11 Law, to domestic violence or child abuse charges, to drunk driving related charges (aka, Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants, DUII, DUI, DWI), to relatively minor offenses such as shoplifting or Theft in the Third Degree. To schedule an appointment to discuss your case, call 541-345-4500.

 

In representing an individual charged with DUII or drunk driving, an Oregon criminal defense DUII lawyer must be sensitive to Oregon law requiring that the person charged with drunk driving install an ignition interlock device, or an IID. The Oregon law set this forth in ORS 813.600, which describes the program. Here it is:

 

Ignition interlock program

“(1) The Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Transportation Safety Committee, shall establish a program for the use of ignition interlock devices by persons convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicants and granted hardship permits under ORS 807.240 (Hardship permit) and by persons who have entered into a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement.

(2) The department shall adopt rules that specify requirements for ignition interlock devices that may be used and shall publish a list of devices that meet the requirements. The list may include devices that:

(a) Do not impede the safe operation of the vehicle;

(b) Have the fewest opportunities to be bypassed;

(c) Correlate well with established measures of alcohol impairment;

(d) Work accurately and reliably in an unsupervised environment;

(e) Require a deep lung breath sample or other accurate measure of blood alcohol content equivalence;

(f) Resist tampering and give evidence if tampering is attempted;

(g) Are difficult to circumvent, and require premeditation to do so;

(h) Minimize inconvenience to a sober user;

(i) Operate reliably over the range of automobile environments or automobile manufacturing standards;

(j) Are manufactured by a party who is adequately insured for product liability; and

(k) Have a label affixed in a prominent location warning that any person tampering with, circumventing or otherwise misusing the device is subject to civil penalty.”

 

The Oregon ignition interlock device (IID) law discussing when an ignition interlock device or IID is required is set forth in ORS 813.602:

Circumstances under which ignition interlock device required

“(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, when a person is convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicants in violation of ORS 813.010 (Driving under the influence of intoxicants) or of a municipal ordinance, the Department of Transportation, in addition to any other requirement, shall require that the person install and use an approved ignition interlock device in any vehicle operated by the person:

(a) Before the person is eligible for a hardship permit. The requirement is a condition of the hardship permit for the duration of the hardship permit.

(b) For a first conviction, for one year after the ending date of the suspension or revocation caused by the conviction. Violation of the condition imposed under this paragraph is a Class A traffic violation.

(c) For a second or subsequent conviction, for two years after the ending date of the suspension or revocation caused by the conviction. Violation of the condition imposed under this paragraph is a Class A traffic violation.

(2) When a person is convicted of a crime or multiple crimes as described in this subsection, the department, in addition to any other requirement, shall require that the person install and use an approved ignition interlock device in any vehicle operated by the person for five years after the ending date of the longest running suspension or revocation caused by any of the convictions. Violation of the condition imposed under this subsection is a Class A traffic violation. A person is subject to this subsection when the person is convicted of:

(a) Driving while under the influence of intoxicants in violation of ORS 813.010 (Driving under the influence of intoxicants) or of a municipal ordinance and any of the following crimes as part of the same criminal episode:

(A) Any degree of murder.

(B) Manslaughter in the first or second degree.

(C) Criminally negligent homicide.

(D) Assault in the first degree.

(b) Aggravated vehicular homicide.

(c) Driving while under the influence of intoxicants in violation of ORS 813.010 (Driving under the influence of intoxicants) or of a municipal ordinance and the persons driving privileges are revoked under ORS 809.235 (Permanent revocation of driving privileges upon conviction of certain crimes) (1)(b) and later ordered restored under ORS 809.235 (Permanent revocation of driving privileges upon conviction of certain crimes) (4).

(3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the court shall require as a condition of a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement that an approved ignition interlock device be installed and used in any vehicle operated by the person during the period of the agreement when the person has driving privileges. In addition to any action taken under ORS 813.255 (Termination of diversion), violation of the condition imposed under this subsection is a Class A traffic violation.

(b) A court may exempt a person from the condition in a diversion agreement to install and use an ignition interlock device if the court determines that the person meets the requirements for a medical exemption in accordance with rules adopted by the department under this section. A person granted a medical exemption under this paragraph shall carry proof of the medical exemption with the person while operating any vehicle.

(4) Except as provided in subsection (5) of this section, if an ignition interlock system is ordered or required under subsection (1), (2) or (3) of this section, the person so ordered or required shall pay to the provider the reasonable costs of leasing, installing and maintaining the device. A payment schedule may be established for the person by the department.

(5) The department may waive, in whole or in part, or defer the defendants responsibility to pay all or part of the costs under subsection (4) of this section if the defendant meets the criteria for indigence established for waiving or deferring such costs under subsection (6) of this section. If the defendants responsibility for costs is waived, then notwithstanding ORS 813.270 (Intoxicated Driver Program Fund), the costs described in subsection (4) of this section must be paid from the Intoxicated Driver Program Fund.

(6) The department, by rule, shall establish criteria and procedures it will use for qualification to waive or defer costs described under subsection (4) of this section for indigence. The criteria must be consistent with the standards for indigence adopted by the federal government for purposes of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

(7) At the end of the suspension or revocation resulting from the conviction, the department shall suspend the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges of a person who has not submitted proof to the department that an ignition interlock device has been installed or who tampers with an ignition interlock device after it has been installed.

(8) If the department imposes a suspension under subsection (7) of this section for failing to submit proof of installation, the suspension continues until the department receives proof that the ignition interlock device has been installed. If the department does not receive proof that the ignition interlock device has been installed, the suspension shall continue for:

(a) One year after the ending date of the suspension resulting from the first conviction;

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection, two years after the ending date of the suspension resulting from a second or subsequent conviction; or

(c) Five years after the ending date of the longest running suspension or revocation resulting from a conviction described in subsection (2) of this section.

(9) If the department imposes a suspension under subsection (7) of this section for tampering with an ignition interlock device, the suspension continues until:

(a) One year after the ending date of the suspension resulting from the first conviction;

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection, two years after the ending date of the suspension resulting from a second or subsequent conviction; or

(c) Five years after the ending date of the longest running suspension or revocation resulting from a conviction described in subsection (2) of this section.

(10) A person whose driving privileges or right to apply for privileges is suspended under subsection (7) of this section is entitled to administrative review, as described in ORS 809.440 (Hearing and administrative review procedures), of the action.

(11) The department shall adopt rules permitting medical exemptions from the requirements of installation and use of an ignition interlock device under subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this section.

(12) When a person is required to install an ignition interlock device under subsection (2) or (3) of this section, the provider of the device shall provide notice of any installation or removal of the device or any tampering with the device to the court that ordered installation of the device or to the courts designee, including but not limited to an agency or organization certified by the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 813.025 (Designation of agency to perform screening, diagnostic assessment and treatment).”

The Oregon ignition interlock device law or Oregon IID law setting forth exceptions for employees driving employer owned vehicles is set forth as follows in ORS 813.606:

Exception for employee otherwise required to have device

“Notwithstanding ORS 813.604 (Notice of court order), if a person is required, in the course and scope of the persons employment, to operate a motor vehicle owned by the persons employer, the person may operate that vehicle without installation of an ignition interlock device if:

(1) The employer has been notified:

(a) That the employee is operating with a hardship permit restricted as provided in ORS 813.604 (Notice of court order);

(b) That the employee is operating on a fully reinstated license within the first year following suspension or revocation for the employees first conviction of driving while under the influence of intoxicants;

(c) That the employee is operating on a fully reinstated license within the second year following suspension or revocation for the employees second or subsequent conviction of driving while under the influence of intoxicants; or

(d) That the employee has driving privileges and is otherwise required to install an ignition interlock device as a condition of a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement; and

(2) The employee has proof of the notification and, if applicable, a fully reinstated license in the possession of the employee while operating the employers vehicle in the course of employment.”

Installing an ignition interlock device and operating a vehicle while maintaining compliance with the rules concerning an IID can be challenging. An Oregon criminal defense attorney who represents individuals charged with drunk driving (aka, Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants, DUII, DUI, DWI), regularly addresses questions related to ignition interlock devices.

 

If you would like to discuss your case, whether it’s an Oregon Measure 11 charge, a domestic violence charge (such as Menacing, Assault, Harassment, Strangulation or Coercion), or any other criminal charge, please contact the Duvall Law Office to schedule an appointment – 541-345-4500.