Angeney v. DMV

Under ORS 813.410(6), a suspension is valid where a person committed a DUII, refused a breath test after being “informed under ORS 813.100 of rights and consequences as described under ORS 813.130,” and the person was given written notice of intent to suspend.

DMV appealed the circuit court’s reversal of a final administrative order that suspended Angeney’s driving privileges. Angeney was arrested for DUII, and the arresting deputy explained and provided a copy of the “rights and consequences” from the DMV’s Implied Consent Combined Report in order to perform a breathalyzer test.  Additionally, the deputy first asked for her “physical cooperation” to take the test and later asked if she would take a breath test; Angeney refused both requests and was provided with written notice of intent to suspend her license. On appeal, DMV argued that there was substantial evidence that Angeney was informed of her “rights and consequences” as required by statute.  Under ORS 813.410(6), a suspension is valid where a person committed a DUII, refused a breath test after being “informed under ORS 813.100 of rights and consequences as described under ORS 813.130,” and the person was given written notice of intent to suspend. The Court held that the statute required the information to be substantially given as provided by ODOT, but did not require the breath test request to be phrased verbatim according to the Implied Consent Form. Reversed and remanded.