Skinner v. Motor Vehicles Division

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Skinner v. Motor Vehicles Division

812 P.2d 46, 107 Or. App. 529, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 860

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 5, 1991

Docket9001-00511; CA A64864

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 812 P.2d 46 (Skinner v. Motor Vehicles Division) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Skinner v. Motor Vehicles Division, 812 P.2d 46, 107 Or. App. 529, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 860 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Respondent was arrested for DUII. ORS 813.010. At the jail, he was advised of his rights and of the consequences of refusing to submit to a breath test. When he was asked to submit to the test, he said that he wished to speak with his attorney first. He was given two opportunities to do so but was unsuccessful, because his attorney was out of town. The officer asked him again if he would take the breath test. Respondent answered that he would not until his attorney was present, which could not be until the next day. The officer treated that response as a refusal and notified respondent of his intent to suspend his driving privileges. Twenty minutes had elapsed from the time of the officer’s first request. Respondent then agreed to take the test but was told that it was too late.

MVD upheld the suspension order. On review, the circuit court reversed, concluding that a motorist may have a reasonable time to recant his refusal if the delay would not materially alter the test results. We review MVD’s order for substantial evidence and errors of law. ORS 183.450(4); Shakerin v. MVD, 101 Or App 357, 790 P2d 1180 (1990). Its findings are supported by substantial evidence, and MVD did not err in concluding that respondent had refused to submit to the test. Bergstrom v. MVD, 104 Or App 141, 799 P2d 673 (1990). The trial court erred.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate suspension order in accordance with Wimmer v. MVD, 83 Or App 268, 730 P2d 1297 (1986).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Respondent was arrested for DUII. ORS 813.010. At the jail, he was advised of his rights and of the consequences of refusing to submit to a breath test. When he was asked to submit to the test, he said that he wished to speak with his attorney first. He was given two opportunities to do so but was unsuccessful, because his attorney was out of town. The officer asked him again if he would take the breath test. Respondent answered that he would not until his attorney was present, which could not be until the next day. The officer treated that response as a refusal and notified respondent of his intent to suspend his driving privileges. Twenty minutes had elapsed from the time of the officer’s first request. Respondent then agreed to take the test but was told that it was too late.

MVD upheld the suspension order. On review, the circuit court reversed, concluding that a motorist may have a reasonable time to recant his refusal if the delay would not materially alter the test results. We review MVD’s order for substantial evidence and errors of law. ORS 183.450(4); Shakerin v. MVD, 101 Or App 357, 790 P2d 1180 (1990). Its findings are supported by substantial evidence, and MVD did not err in concluding that respondent had refused to submit to the test. Bergstrom v. MVD, 104 Or App 141, 799 P2d 673 (1990). The trial court erred.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate suspension order in accordance with Wimmer v. MVD, 83 Or App 268, 730 P2d 1297 (1986).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

812 P.2d 46, 107 Or. App. 529, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skinner-v-motor-vehicles-division-orctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack