2017 ORS 809.650¹
Effect of habitual offender revocation

This section is repealed
Effective January 1, 2019
Relating to driving privileges; creating new provisions; amending ORS 163.196, 164.775, 165.805, 430.165, 430.197, 801.250, 802.170, 802.550, 807.020, 807.200, 807.240, 807.370, 809.135, 809.260, 809.275, 809.280, 809.310, 809.312, 809.380, 809.390, 809.409, 809.411, 809.415, 809.416, 809.600, 811.175, 811.182, 813.040 and 813.520; and repealing ORS 339.254, 339.257, 807.250, 807.252, 807.260, 807.270, 809.265, 809.423, 809.650, 809.660, 813.500 and 813.510.

(1) When the Department of Transportation revokes a person’s driving privileges as a habitual offender under ORS 809.640 (Procedures on habitual offender determination), the person has no driving privileges for motor vehicles in this state and cannot obtain any driving privileges for motor vehicles in this state, except as provided under a probationary driver permit described under ORS 807.270 (Probationary driver permit), until the person:

(a) Is again eligible under this section for the issuance of driving privileges; and

(b) The department restores the privilege of the person to operate a motor vehicle in this state under ORS 809.660 (Restoration of privileges).

(2) A person whose driving privileges are revoked as a habitual offender is not eligible for the issuance of driving privileges until the expiration of five years from the date the driving privileges of the person were revoked. [1983 c.338 §366; 1985 c.16 §186]

Notes of Decisions

License revoca­tion of habitual offender continues in effect after specified min­i­mum time until driver applies for and receives restora­tion. State v. Stanfill, 166 Or App 104, 997 P2d 297 (2000)

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute

Dismissal of pre­vi­ous complaint alleging defendant was habitual traffic offender barred sec­ond complaint alleging same cause of ac­tion where court has signed order which adjudged defendant was not habitual traffic offender. State ex rel MVD v. Henigan, 37 Or App 135, 586 P2d 395 (1978)

Neither Article I, sec­tion 11 of the Oregon Constitu­tion or the Sixth Amend­ment to the United States Constitu­tion require appoint­ment of counsel for indigent defendants in habitual traffic offender pro­ceed­ings. State v. Rhoades, 54 Or App 254, 634 P2d 806 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

There is no limita­tion period for pro­ceed­ings under the Habitual Traffic Offenders Act. State v. Renteria, 59 Or App 619, 651 P2d 1362 (1982)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Under Former Similar Statute

Convic­tions prior to 1973 Habitual Traffic Offenders Act, (1974) Vol 36, p 859

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 809—Refusal, Suspension, Cancellation and Revocation of Registration, Title, Driving Privileges and Identification Card; Vehicle Impoundment, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors809.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 809, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano809.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.