2015 ORS 813.131¹
Implied consent to urine test
  • privacy
  • laboratories for analysis

(1) Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon premises open to the public or the highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to the Motorist Implied Consent Law, to a chemical test of the person’s urine for the purpose of determining the presence of a controlled substance or an inhalant in the person’s body if the person is arrested for 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 either:

(a) The person takes the breath test described in ORS 813.100 (Implied consent to breath or blood test) and the test discloses a blood alcohol content of less than 0.08 percent; or

(b) The person is involved in an accident resulting in injury or property damage. A urine test may be requested under this paragraph regardless of whether a breath test has been requested and regardless of the results of a breath test, if one is taken.

(2) A police officer may not request a urine test unless the officer is certified by the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training as having completed at least eight hours of training in recognition of drug impaired driving and the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has been driving while under the influence of a controlled substance, an inhalant or any combination of an inhalant, a controlled substance and intoxicating liquor.

(3) A person asked to give a urine sample shall be given privacy and may not be observed by a police officer when producing the sample.

(4)(a) At the trial of any civil or criminal action, suit or proceeding arising out of the acts committed by a person driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants, a valid chemical analysis of a person’s urine is admissible as evidence and may be used with other evidence, if any, to determine whether the person was driving while under the influence of intoxicants.

(b) A chemical analysis of a person’s urine is valid under this subsection if analysis is performed in an accredited or licensed toxicology laboratory. [1995 c.676 §1; 1999 c.619 §10; 1999 c.752 §1; 2009 c.325 §1; 2015 c.11 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Quantitative testing is not re­quired for urinalysis evidence to be admissible. State v. Fong, 226 Or App 493, 204 P3d 146 (2009), Sup Ct review denied

Admissibility of urinalysis that complies with this sec­tion remains subject to founda­tional require­ments for introduc­tion of scientific evidence. State v. Tripathi, 226 Or App 552, 204 P3d 134 (2009)

When legislature transferred, as part of broad changes to chapter governing public safety standards and training, duties of certifica­tion of police of­fi­cers from Board on Public Safety Standards and Training to exclusive domain of Depart­ment of Public Safety Standards and Training, legislature impliedly amended this sec­tion to require that of­fi­cers requesting urine tests be certified by depart­ment; thus, evidence that, at time when driver's license was suspended, of­fi­cer was certified by depart­ment, not board, was sufficient for finding that of­fi­cer was properly certified to request urine test under this sec­tion. Hanson v. DMV, 278 Or App 599, 375 P3d 563 (2016)

  • Pete Castleberry, Sep 12, 2011
    “If you fail or refuse a breath test, the police will confiscate your driver's license and give you a yellow Implied Consent Suspension Form. . . .”

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 813—Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors813.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 813, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano813.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.