Murdoch v. DMV

Under ORS 813.100(1), “an officer need not inform a driver of his rights and consequences before asking him to submit to [a breath] test.” Under Hays v. DMV 230 Or App 559 (2009), only the DMV may modify the rights and consequences to be read to drivers in enforcing implied consent.

DMV appealed the reversal of their suspension of Murdoch’s driving privileges made under ORS 813.130(3). Murdoch argued that (1) an officer must inform him of the rights and consequences of refusal before asking him to take a breath test and (2) the trooper’s statements about obtaining a search warrant unlawfully modified the consequences of refusal. On appeal, DMV argued that ORS 813.100(1) requires that officers inform drivers of the rights and consequences of refusal before administering a test, not prior to a request to take a test. DMV also argued that because the trooper could have obtained a search warrant, the information provided complied with ORS 813.130. Under ORS 813.100(1), “an officer need not inform a driver of his rights and consequences before asking him to submit to [a breath] test.” Under Hays v. DMV, 230 Or App 559 (2009), only the DMV may modify the rights and consequences to be read to drivers in enforcing implied consent. The Court found that the statutory scheme containing ORS 813.100 has “three distinct concepts: request, administration, and submission.” ORS 813.100(1) requires that a driver be informed prior to administration, which is separate from the request. The Court also found that their decision in Hays required officers to read the rights and consequences as directed by DMV and that any modification of the approved language is “legally unauthorized.” Affirmed.