-
Presently, persons in Oregon’s DUI diversion program are required to install an approved ignition interlock device on any vehicle that they are operating during the diversion period under ORS 813.602. This requirement of diversion was passed in 2011. Prior to the 2011 amendment, individuals in diversion were not required to install an ignition interlock device while they were in diversion, however, they were required to install the device if they had been convicted for DUI after their license was reinstated or when operating on a hardship permit. A person convicted of DUI in Oregon is required to install the device but ORS 813.606 provides an exception to the requirement for employer owned vehicles driven for work purposes under certain circumstances. That means that if someone needs to drive for work, their employer is not required to install the device on work vehicles. This exception means in many circumstances that persons convicted of DUI are allowed to keep their jobs. However, when the Oregon legislature amended the Diversion law in 2011, they didn’t extend the employer owned vehicle exception to persons required to install an ignition interlock device based on their participation in the DUI diversion program. In an odd quirk......
-
Yesterday, the Oregonian reported that a Hillsboro woman was arrested and charged with robbery in the first degree, unlawful use of a weapon, and theft in the third degree after confronting her estranged husband over childcare expenses. The Hillsboro Police say that the woman made out with between $300 and $400 in cash after firing a single shot into the ceiling of an Econo Lodge hotel room ceiling. According to the Oregonian, the husband has a history of domestic abuse against his wife....
-
Recently, the Oregon Supreme Court decided that an individual’s rights were violated when they were not allowed an opportunity to present a defense in a DUI case. The defense that the attorney wanted to present was that the defendant was “sleep driving.” The Oregon Supreme Court found that the trial court’s decision not to allow the defense attorney to present a “sleep driving” defense was a violation of the defendant’s rights and a violation of the law. What the Oregon Supreme Court has done here is simply reinforce a staple tenant of criminal law: in order to be convicted of crime, you must commit a crime of your own volition. That is, the act of committing a crime must be a voluntary one. The criminal defense attorney in this case did a good job preserving the issue at the trial level. As a result of the work done by the criminal defense attorney, the defendant will get a new trial and he will be able to present this “sleep driving” defense in his next DUI trial. Check out the Oregonian article here....
-
Call a lawyer! First off, if you have been arrested for DUI you have the right to call a lawyer or anyone you would like to discuss whether or not you should take a breath test. If at all possible you should try to consult a lawyer prior to consenting to a breath test. What are the penalties if I do or do not consent to the breath test? The answer to that question depends. Under Oregon’s implied consent law, everyone who drives in Oregon has impliedly consented to submit to a breath test if they are under arrest and the officer has probable cause to believe that they have been driving under the influence of intoxicants. Under Oregon’s criminal code, anyone who is convicted of DUI will have their license suspended for a period ranging from 1 year (first offense) to a lifetime revocation (third offense in lifetime). Under the implied consent law, if you take and fail a breath test, your license can be suspended for a period of 90 days to 1 year depending on your prior criminal history. If you refuse, your license can be suspended for 1-3 years depending on your history. What if it is......
-
The Oregonian reported yesterday that a Portland man was sentenced to 6-months in jail for a hit and run involving an injured person. Ryan Jacko had downed whiskey and three beers before heading to a Trail Blazer game. After the game he struck and seriously injured a pedestrian before leaving the scene. In Oregon a hit and run conviction can carry serious penalties. A hit and run charge involving an injured person, depending on the severity of the injury, is either a class C (maximum of 5 years in prison) or class B felony (maximum of 10 years in prison). If you are involved in an accident, and you know that a person was injured as a result, your duty is to immediately stop, remain at the scene, and exchange information with the injured person. In addition, if you are involved in an injury accident, the law requires that you render any person injured in the accident “reasonable assistance.” That includes transporting or making arrangements for the transport of the injured person to a hospital. So, if you are involved in such an accident, you should use care in assessing the situation. If you have been charged with Hit and......
-
Mugshot bill passes House unanimously!...
-
The Oregonian today reports that an amended version of HB 3467 has passed the House Judiciary Committee unanimously and is headed for a vote. The amended bill makes charging a fee for removal of a mugshot for anyone who’s charge has been dismissed, reduced to a violation or expunged an unfair trade practice. The bill creates a cause of action against any website who fails to remove a mugshot, after written request has been made accompanied by proof, within thirty days if the person qualifies. A person qualifies under this section if their charge has been dismissed (including those who have gone through a diversion program), reduced to a violation or for anyone who has had their conviction expunged. This bill goes a long way towards protecting Oregonian’s from extortion, however, the current bill that is likely to pass the House, does not prevent local law enforcement agencies from posting mugshots online. Since the mugshots are still available on local law enforcement websites, the practice of pulling mugshots off of these sites, re-posting the images, tagging a person’s name, and then charging a fee for removal will likely continue. Read the Oregonian’s article here....
-
The Oregonian ran a great story on HB 3467 placing the issue on the front page. The reality is that people are being charged unreasonable fees to remove their mugshot off of Internet sites that are using public records to extort Oregonians. Click here to read the Oregonian’s coverage of the issue....
-
Dealing with an arrest and criminal charge is difficult to begin with, but it should not follow you for the rest of your life. When I saw my clients paying extorted fees to predatory businesses to remove their booking photos or mugshots off the Internet, even after their charges were dismissed, I did something about it. At present, local law enforcement agencies may, at their discretion, post booking photos of arrested persons on their local sheriff or county website along with a list of charges for which the individual was arrested. The secondary effect of this practice is that these mugshots are then pulled off the law enforcement websites, tagged with the persons name, and reproduced on a variety of websites and magazines (Busted Magazine, PDXmugshots.com, mugshots.com, etc.). When this happens it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to contain this information – even after charges are dismissed. The presence of these images online wreaks havoc on the lives of people accused of crimes. It can impact employment, it’s embarrassing, and getting the images off of these websites is expensive. These businesses understand the effect that posting these images have on the lives of people accused of crimes and they......
