https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Blog%3ACase_Reviews%2FOregon_Supreme_Court_3-1-12 2026-05-30T05:10:13Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.19.24 https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Supreme_Court_3-1-12&diff=7908&oldid=prev 2012-12-21T00:23:14Z

<p>Importing text file</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>==Breath Test Refusal Admissible at Trial Even if Warnings Aren't Understood.==<br /> <br /> When arrested for DUII, a defendant is properly &quot;informed&quot; of the consequences of refusal to take a breath test if the arresting officer complies with the requirement to read the rights and consequences substantially as set out in ORS 813.130. Here, even though the defendant had a &quot;weak&quot; command of the English language and the officer &quot;noticed a language barrier in his communication with the defendant,&quot; the defendant's refusal was admissible. The state does not have to establish that the defendant fully understood the information.<br /> <br /> [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/sites/Publications/S059289.pdf ''State v. Cabanilla'']<br /> {{wl-publish: 2012-03-09 14:39:36 -0800 | mwitt }}</div>

Maintenance script