Oregon Supreme Ct - May 4, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • May 8, 2017 • no comments

Confrontation - "Implied Consent Combined Report" Not Barred by Federal Confrontation Clause in DWS Trial

The court affirms the introduction of an "implied consent combined report" in defendant's trial for driving while suspended. Defendant's driver's license was suspended following her refusal to take a blood test following a bad accident. At that time, police filled out an implied consent combined report, which asserted that defendant had been given notice of the suspension. A year and a half later, defendant was charged with driving while suspended after police stopped her and determined her license had been suspended. Defendant asserted that she had not been given notice of the suspension, and the state introduced over defendant's federal confrontation clause objection the combined report. Defendant was convicted and appealed.

The court first explains in detail the administrative scheme behind the combined report. The report initiates an administrative process for a formal license suspension with the DMV. To be sure, the report also may, at a future time, be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding, but the court notes that several contingencies must occur before the form has that purpose. Accordingly, the court notes that its earlier decision in State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816 (2013), in which it concluded that a certificate of service on a restraining order was not testimonial, goes a long way towards resolving this case. Under Copeland, the combined report was not testimonial because its primary purpose was administrative.

State v. Rafeh, 361 Or 423 (2017) (Kistler, J.)