lawyer attorney lawyers attorneys
Tell us about your case. Contact Us Disclaimer Information James O'Rourke bio information Call us at 503-221-1425 for a FREE initial no obligation telephone consultation.  
James O'Rourke - Criminal defense lawyer Portland Oregon

https://letsrunwithit.com/rs.php?how-to-increase-testosterone-in-women how to increase testosterone in women
Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional

Category: DUII

Alternatives to Straight Jail Sentences In Felony DUII Cases in Oregon

low testosterone and weight loss As a Gresham and Portland DUII lawyer, I actively seek sentencing solutions for my DUII clients which allow them to maintain family, employment, financial and treatment stability while serving alternative “jail” sentences in DUII cases. I negotiate and argue for the best options for my clients.

https://renaissanceinnovations.com/som/how-to-use-testosterone/ how to use testosterone Treatment courts can be a good option for the resolution of a Felony DUII case or a case where the client is exposed to a lengthy jail sentence.

testosterone is for male what about female Eighteen years ago, Multnomah County began an experiment with the use of treatment court for DUII offenders. The DUII Intensive Supervision Program (DISP) directed offenders into a highly structured probation with regular appearances in court to monitor progress and compliance. The touchstones of this program are accountability and honesty. Participants are encouraged to disclose relapses and are given a range of sanctions, which are more severe for those who are not honest about their alcohol or drug use. Program participants remain under supervision from two to five years.

sodium decanoate The DISP Program has been highly successful. In the last 17 years almost eighty three percent of the graduates have avoided new DUII convictions and almost eighty nine percent of graduates do not reoffend in the five years after graduation. The goal of the DISP program is to offer meaningful treatment to DUII offenders and to help them develop a stability in all aspects of their lives.

trenbolone cycle Ballot Measure 73 was enacted in 2010. It required judges to sentence people convicted of Felony DUII to a mandatory minimum of 90 days in jail without any reduction in the sentence. DUII treatment courts judges tried suspending or commuting all or part of the mandatory 90 day jail sentence for treatment court participants. The Multnomah County District Attorney appealed these actions and the Court of Appeals agreed that the 90 day sentence must be imposed.

https://tubadev.net/intl.php?hcg-testosterone-levels hcg testosterone levels The DISP Court judges have presented Senate Bills 356 and 357to the 2015 legislature, trenbolone which would allow treatment courts to substitute transdermal alcohol detection monitoring for the jail sentence called for under Measure 73. These “SCRAM” bracelets can detect alcohol use by monitoring a person’s skin for signs of alcohol use. These devices provide immediate notice to probation supervisors if a person uses alcohol. The Measure is opposed by the sponsor of Ballot Measure 73 and the Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

best place to buy testosterone enanthate does nugenix testosterone booster work In this case, there is a difference between being tough in sentencing DUII offenders and being smart in sentencing DUII offenders. The solution for serial drunk drivers is to stop drinking. The foundations for long term sobriety are financial, family stability and treatment. Treatment court programs recognize this and want to provide offenders with the tools to stop drinking and stay sober uninterrupted by jail.

https://oliverbaker.org/way.php?testosterone-ad testosterone ad As a 36 year Gresham and Portland DUII lawyer I support the mission of treatment courts in promoting public safety by helping people achieve long term sobriety. I support Senate Bills 356 and 357.

https://letsrunwithit.com/rs.php?what-is-a-male-hormone-called what is a male hormone called

False Positive U/A’s and DUII Diversion Revocations and DUII Probation Violations

saturated fat testosterone As a Portland DUII Attorney, I represent many people who are facing revocation of their Diversion or a Probation Violation because of a “dirty U/A.”  U/A testing is a mandatory part of any certified treatment program required to complete Diversion or a DUII Probation.  A minimum of two U/A’s must be administered during treatment.  However, most treatment programs administer them more frequently and do so on a random basis.

does anavar work A U/A is generally performed using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry.  Minute amounts of alcohol or controlled substances can be detected using this process.  The laboratories that perform this testing have thresholds over which a sample is deemed “positive.”  One problem we often see is that the labs are setting their thresholds lower than accepted standards, raising the risk of false positive tests, as will be discussed later.  A person who tests “dirty” can ask for a re-test and is usually asked to pay for the re-test if it confirms the initial positive result.

https://oliverbaker.org/way.php?dianabol-tablet dianabol tablet http://vcmsales.com/reviews/?injectable-steroids injectable steroids what is testosterone propionate used for The Problem of False Positives

testosterone supplements for women gnc  

https://letsrunwithit.com/rs.php?how-to-use-anadrol-50 how to use anadrol 50 Well run treatment programs will give their client’s a list of items to avoid consuming during treatment because they risk having a false positive or innocent positive U/A.  People are told to avoid mouthwash or liquid medication that contain alcohol, as well as alcohol based hand sanitizers.

cause low testosterone There are other substances that cause false positives that may come as a surprise.  1).  Poppy seeds.  As little as one teaspoon of poppy seeds can result in a positive test for opiates, codeine and/or morphine for two to three days.  2).  Prilosec.  This acid reducer can cause a false positive for marijuana, 3).  Cold Medicines and Anti-Depressant Medications.  These can cause false positive results for amphetamine.  3).  Zoloft.  This can cause a false positive for benzodiazepines like Valium and Ativan.

https://reneebaker.org/testo/most-common-anabolic-steroids/ most common anabolic steroids Not all treatment programs are aware of the variety of substances that can cause false positives.  As a result, they do not ask the right questions about other substances that may have caused a false positive result.  The same is true of testing laboratories, who often do not inform the treatment providers of possible false positive results.   Not all testing laboratories use the proper thresholds for determining the presence of prohibited substances.

http://vcmsales.com/reviews/?what-is-oxandrolone what is oxandrolone In a recent case, we represented a person who supposedly tested positive for codeine/morphine and THC but who in fact had not taken opiates or used marijuana.  The lab that tested his sample was using outdated thresholds for opiate testing that were far lower than those recommended by the testing industry and the U.S government.  What our client’s sample really indicated was that our client had consumed  poppy seeds which explained the positive for codeine/morphine and was taking Prilosec which caused the false positve for THC.  Neither the treatment program did not ask our client any questions about the consumption of any substances that might cause a false positive result.  The treatment center then discharged our client from treatment and reported a failed U/A to the Court.  Fortunately, we were able to show the Court that the level of opiate drugs detected in the U/A was consistent with poppy seeds and the postive test for THC was a result of Prilosec.  The client’s  Diversion was not revoked and the client was referred to a different treatment program which, hopefully, will be more diligent in its testing procedures.

winstrol 25mg capsules dball steroids https://renaissanceminiatures.com/insta/testosterone-enanthate-injection-for-sale/ testosterone enanthate injection for sale Hire a Lawyer With Knowledge of U/A Testing

tren hex cycle As a DUI Defense lawyer in Gresham and Portland I thoroughly investigate allegations that my client’s have failed a U/A.  Often, there are innocent explanations for allegedly dirty U/A’s.  I have the staff available to assist me in these investigations, including a retired pharmacist with an extensive knowledge of drug chemistry.

https://oliverbaker.org/way.php?increase-testosterone-supplements-gnc increase testosterone supplements gnc

Defense of DUII and Criminal Cases in Gresham Oregon

coconut oil testosterone As a Gresham Criminal Defense Lawyer, it is important to understand the structure of the court system in Multnomah County.   The Multnomah County Circuit Court has two courthouses dedicated to handling adult criminal cases.  The primary courthouse is in Downtown Portland on Fourth Avenue.  This building was completed in 1914 and renovated many times over the years.  Most of the criminal and DUII cases are resolved in the main courthouse.  There are also four courtrooms in the Multnomah County Detention Center that handle arraignments and DUII Diversion matters.

testosterone serum low For many years, certain criminal cases have been resolved in a satellite Circuit Court located in Gresham.  Last year, the old Gresham courthouse facility was replaced with a new courthouse located on 184th and Stark in Gresham.  The East County Circuit Court handles misdemeanor criminal matters that occur east of 122nd Avenue.  This Court resolves DUII cases, Diversions, Reckless Driving cases and Domestic Violence cases that happen in the eastern part of Multnomah County.  These cases can include prosecutions for misdemeanor violations of the Portland and Gresham City Codes.

top 5 steroids The East County Circuit Court has special rules that govern how cases are managed in that system.  These differences can influence whether or not a person might want to move their case to the main courthouse and follow the rules for downtown cases.  It important to consult with an attorney prior to your first court appearance in order to determine whether the case should be moved.  Cases can be moved at the first appearance only.  After that, the case remains in the East County Circuit Court.

oral winstrol side effects If you are cited for a DUII or other misdemeanor crime in Gresham, you will likely be ordered to appear in Court about 30 days after your arrest.  During this time the police reports will be prepared and reviewed by the District Attorney’s Office.  The District Attorney will decide what charges should be filed and will normally file those charges a few days before your arraignment.  People should remember that the charges on the citation they received from the arresting officer are just suggestions to the District Attorney as to what the officer thinks should be charged.  The District Attorney may bring fewer or different charges.  The DA may chose to add charges.  For instance, in a DUII case with an accident, a police officer may only cite a person for DUII and Reckless Driving.  However, after review the District Attorney could choose to add charges of Recklessly Endangering Another Person, Criminal Mischief in the Second Degree (for the property damage) and/or an Assault charge if another person was injured.

http://vcmsales.com/reviews/?anadrol-50-mg anadrol 50 mg As a Gresham DUII lawyer with over 35 years of experience, I know the intricacies of the Multnomah County and Gresham court systems.   This experience pays off for my clients and I always try to get the best possible disposition that satisfies my client.

low testosterone treatment risks  

https://renaissanceminiatures.com/insta/legal-steroids-side-effects/ legal steroids side effects

New Rules For Oregon’s DUII Diversion Program

The 2013 legislature made two changes to Oregon’s Diversion Program. The changes were sponsored by the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyer’s Association and the Oregon District Attorney’s Association. As a Portland DUII Attorney I support these changes.

Diversion is a deferred sentencing program in which a person enters a plea of guilty or no contest to DUII, but the sentencing is deferred for one year. A program participant is required to complete certain requirements, the main one being treatment, with the promise that the case will be dismissed at the end of the one year period if the person complies. The period can be extended once for 180 days.

A diversion participant must pay many expenses. There are court fees for entering the program, fees for a drug and alcohol evaluation and the cost of treatment itself. Many people struggle to pay these costs and end up needing more time to pay off their obligations.

More Time To Pay Costs

House Bill 2627 allows the Court to give a person a little more time to pay the court costs, if the balance is under $500.00. The maximum length of a Diversion agreement is one and a half years. This bill allows the Court, at the end of a year and a half, to set a court hearing outside of the year and a half period to allow a person to pay the remaining court costs. HB 2627 does not specify how long a period of time the Court can allow, but it will likely be one or two months. In the past, the Court had no authority to go beyond the one and a half year limit. I have seen many people terminated from the Diversion Program simply because they could not afford to pay court casts. This is a sensible change that shows consideration for people who are struggling to pay Diversion costs.

Defendants Now Pay Restitution

HB 2627 also allows the Court to impose a restitution obligation if a person caused an economic loss to another person during the course of their DUII. This was not possible in the past because Diversion eligible DUIIs never had a formal sentencing in which the Court could make a determination that restitution was appropriate. Now, the Court can hold a restitution hearing as a part of a Diversion agreement and enter a Judgment against the Diversion participant for any economic loss they have caused to another person.

The best part of this change is that a diversion participant cannot be terminated from the program just because they still owe restitution monies at the end of their Diversion. If a person does owe restitution money at the end of their case, the Court will enter a money judgment against the participant for the unpaid balance. This can then be paid in installments or sent out to a collection agency.

As an Gresham DUII Lawyer I am always pleased to see defense lawyers and prosecutors work together on matters of mutual interest. These changes provide assistance to people with financial hardships and restitution to persons who suffered an economic loss as a result of a DUII driver.

Differences Between Oregon DUII and Washington DUI

There are significant differences between Oregon’s DUII law and Washington’s DUI.  These differences extend both to the way driving under the influence is defined and the manner in which violations of the laws are punished.

In Oregon, a person commits a DUII when they operate a vehicle (which includes a bicycle) at a time when the person is visibly impaired by drugs or alcohol or has a blood alcohol concentration over .08 at the time of driving.  Washington law is different in two significant ways.  First, Washington also extends DUI to people who are in “actual physical control” of a vehicle, which applies the law to people who have just started their car or who have taken actions which indicate their intent to drive while under the influence.  The point is that one need not actually drive in order to be convicted of DUI in Washington.  Second, Washington provides that a person is guilty of DUI if their blood alcohol concentration is .08 or higher within two hours of driving.   In other words, the state is not required to establish that a person was .08 or higher at the time of driving, as is required in Oregon.

Another important difference between Oregon and Washington driving under the influence cases is in the deferred sentencing programs that are available to those charge with DUII.  In Oregon, first offenders (or persons with no DUIIs in the last 15 years) are eligible for the Diversion Program.  This program, which lasts a year, requires participants to pay certain fees, attend recommended treatment and remain abstinent from alcohol for one year.  If a person complies with program requirements the case is dismissed after a year.  Washington offers a Deferred Prosecution Program.  This program is available to anyone, regardless of how many prior DUI convictions a person has.  The Program requires that a person be evaluated and determined to be dependent on alcohol or controlled substances.  The treatment program for such people is extremely intensive and lasts two years or longer.  Upon successful completion the DUI charge is dismissed.

Lastly, there are differences in how cases can be resolved by plea negotiation.  In Oregon, a DUII charge cannot be reduced to a lesser offense.  Oregon did away with the practice of allowing a plea to Reckless Driving (then called a “wet reckless”) in 1985.  In order to dismiss a DUII charge in Oregon a prosecutor must make an affirmative representation to the Court that the case cannot be proven.  Washington commonly allows first offenders to enter pleas to other charges, usually Negligent Driving or Reckless Driving.  The criteria for negotiating this resolution varies from county to county, but it is usually reserved for first offenders with a low breath test result, among other factors.

As a Portland DUII Attorney and a Vancouver, Washington DUI Attorney I understand the various options for resolving driving under the influence cases in both states.

 

Oregon Court of Appeals Tightens Rules on Estimating Blood Alcohol Concentration

It is common for prosecutors in Oregon DUII cases to introduce evidence, through expert testimony, that purports to estimate a person’s blood alcohol concentration at a particular point in time.  These estimates, called “retrograde extrapolation,” are based on “Widmark’s Formula,” an equation developed by a Swedish Physician in the early 1980’s.  Widmark’s equation makes certain assumptions about the rate at which alcohol is absorbed into the blood stream and the rate at which alcohol is metabolized by the body.  By accounting for a person’s weight, it is said that an expert can use this calculation to determine a person’s blood alcohol concentration hours prior to them being tested.

This calculation can be critical in a DUII or vehicular assault prosecution.  Under Oregon DUII law, a prosecutor is required to provide proof that a person’s blood alcohol level was over the legal limit of .08 nugenix commercial at the time of driving.   Since breath or blood tests are often administered an hour or more after driving, prosecutors rely on this equation as a useful tool.  Generally, the witness is a chemist from the Oregon State Police Crime Lab who is familiar with the equation and has the expertise to do the mathematical calculation.  This equation can also be used to calculate the number of drinks that a person consumed.

The problem with Widmark’s Formula is that it makes assumptions about how fast alcohol is absorbed into the body and, more importantly, the rate at which alcohol dissipates from the blood stream.  The truth is that the dissipation rate for alcohol varies widely among individual people.  Widmark assumed that the average person metabolizes alcohol at a rate of about .015 per hour.  In actual fact, that rate can vary from .009 to .040 between individuals.

Recently, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled on the admissibility of retrograde extrapolation evidence in State v. Whitmore.  Mr. Whitemore was arrested for DUII and had a BAC of .08 about an hour after the traffic stop.  He claimed he had only drank 3 beers over a period of two hours.  The state called a Crime Lab Expert who applied Widmark’s calculation and offered the opinion that a man of Whitemore’s size would have had to consume 7 to 10 and half drinks to be at .08 under the facts set out by Whitemore’s testimony, which painted him as a liar.

Whitemore’s lawyer argued that the state should have been required to prove that Widmark’s calculation was scientifically valid before they could have the chemist apply the calculation and offer an opinion, an argument the trial judge rejected.  The Court of Appeals reversed Whitmore’s conviction, holding that the state does have to prove that the calculation is scientifically accurate before having a witness offer an opinion based on the equation.  The Court noted that evidence that is scientific in nature is likely to be viewed as reliable by a jury.  As such, the state should be required to prove the science, or “lay the foundation,” for the accuracy of the equation before an opinion based on that science can be presented to a jury.

This is an important ruling for Portland Criminal Defense Lawyers.
It is common for prosecutors in Oregon DUII cases to introduce evidence, through expert testimony, that purports to estimate a person’s blood alcohol concentration at a particular point in time. These estimates, called “retrograde extrapolation,” are based on “Widmark’s Formula,” an equation developed by a Swedish Physician in the early 1980’s. Widmark’s equation makes certain assumptions about the rate at which alcohol is absorbed into the blood stream and the rate at which alcohol is metabolized by the body. By accounting for a person’s weight, it is said that an expert can use this calculation to determine a person’s blood alcohol concentration hours prior to them being tested.

This calculation can be critical in a DUII or vehicular assault prosecution. Under Oregon DUII law, a prosecutor is required to provide proof that a person’s blood alcohol level was over the legal limit of .08 at the time of driving. Since breath or blood tests are often administered an hour or more after driving, prosecutors rely on this equation as a useful tool. Generally, the witness is a chemist from the Oregon State Police Crime Lab who is familiar with the equation and has the expertise to do the mathematical calculation. This equation can also be used to calculate the number of drinks that a person consumed.

The problem with Widmark’s Formula is that it makes assumptions about how fast alcohol is absorbed into the body and, more importantly, the rate at which alcohol dissipates from the blood stream. The truth is that the dissipation rate for alcohol varies widely among individual people. Widmark assumed that the average person metabolizes alcohol at a rate of about .015 per hour. In actual fact, that rate can vary from .009 to .040 between individuals.

Recently, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled on the admissibility of retrograde extrapolation evidence in State v. Whitmore. Mr. Whitemore was arrested for DUII and had a BAC of .08 about an hour after the traffic stop. He claimed he had only drank 3 beers over a period of two hours. The state called a Crime Lab Expert who applied Widmark’s calculation and offered the opinion that a man of Whitemore’s size would have had to consume 7 to 10 and half drinks to be at .08 under the facts set out by Whitemore’s testimony, which painted him as a liar.

Whitemore’s lawyer argued that the state should have been required to prove that Widmark’s calculation was scientifically valid before they could have the chemist apply the calculation and offer an opinion, an argument the trial judge rejected. The Court of Appeals reversed Whitmore’s conviction, holding that the state does have to prove that the calculation is scientifically accurate before having a witness offer an opinion based on the equation. The Court noted that evidence that is scientific in nature is likely to be viewed as reliable by a jury. As such, the state should be required to prove the science, or “lay the foundation,” for the accuracy of the equation before an opinion based on that science can be presented to a jury.

This is an important ruling for Portland Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Oregon Supreme Court Approves Portland Criminal Lawyer’s “Sleep Driving” Defense to DUII

The Oregon Supreme Court decided State v. Miller in 1990, holding that involuntary intoxication was not a defense to DUII.  The Court determined that DUII was a “strict liability” offense and that the legislature had deliberately written the DUII statute to dispense with the requirement that the state prove that a person had intentionally, knowingly or recklessly become intoxicated.

Now, twenty three years later, the Oregon Supreme Court decided State v. Newman, holding that, while the state does not have to prove intent to become intoxicated,  the state does have to prove that the act of driving itself was intentional, knowing or reckless.

In 2007, Mr. Newman went to dinner with friends.  Knowing that he would be drinking, Mr. Newman walked to the restaurant and his friends drove him home and he went to sleep.  He was arrested later that evening for DUII when he was observed driving erratically by the Portland Police.

At trial, Mr. Newman sought to introduce evidence from a physician that he suffered from “sleepwalking disorder” which is a recognized mental health disorder.  The physician testified that a person in a “sleepwalking” state would not be capable of performing the voluntary act of driving because, in this state, people are not truly conscious.   Mr. Newman wanted to testify that, while he had sleepwalked in his home, he had never driven before while asleep.

The trial court refused to allow such evidence to be admitted, finding that DUII was a strict liability offense and, as such, was not relevant.  Mr. Newman was convicted of Felony DUII after a trial to the court.

Mr. Newman appealed and the case made its way to the Oregon Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court recognized its holding in Miller in 1990 finding that the intoxication element of DUII did not require proof of intent.  However, the Court noted that it had never addressed the issue of whether the driving element of DUII required proof of intent.

The Supreme Court observed that Oregon law requires that the element of any crime requires proof of a ‘voluntary act” as a “minimal requirement” in order for a person to be found guilty of a crime.  Under the circumstances of Mr. Newman’s case, it was possible to prove that he was in an unconscious state at the time of driving and that his actions were not a product of his intoxication.  The Court found that if he proved that his driving was an unconscious act, and therefore not a voluntary act, a jury could find him not guilty of DUII.  The Court reversed his conviction and remanded his case for a new trial.

This case provides an avenue for an entirely new defense to the charge of DUII.  As a Portland Oregon DUII Lawyer, I explore all possible defenses to DUII.

No Warrantless Forced Blood Draws in Ordinary Oregon DUII Cases, Says U.S. Supreme Court

When Tyler McNeely was stopped by a Missouri police officer he must have known that he was in big trouble.  He had two prior DUII convictions and a third conviction would be a felony.  The officer smelled alcohol and asked him to perform field sobriety tests.  McNeely refused a portable roadside breath test.  When he was arrested he told the officer that he would refuse to take a breath test at the police station.  The officer transported Mr. McNeely to a hospital and, over McNeely’s objection, had a hospital lab technician draw blood.  The officer did not even try to secure a warrant and instead relied on the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement.  The theory was that since alcohol dissipates from a person’s blood stream over time, there was an emergency that required immediate action in order to preserve the evidence of intoxication.

McNeely was tried and convicted in a Missouri trial court.  The Missouri Supreme Court reversed his conviction, finding that the mere fact that alcohol dissipates is not enough to justify an emergency forced blood draw, particularly in an ordinary DUII.

The question raised in this case is an important one.  Some state courts have determined that the mere fact that alcohol dissipates is not enough, standing alone, to establish exigent circumstances in a DUII investigation.  Other states, including Oregon, have held that alcohol dissipation establishes an exigency automatically, essentially adopting an exigency per se rule.

The United States Supreme Court agreed to review McNeely’s case in order to settle the split between the states, once and for all.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in Missouri v. McNeely on April 17, 2013.  The Court noted that it had previously allowed forced blood draws without a warrant in the 1966 case of Schmerber v. California.  However, Schmerber was a much different case, factually, and involved a serious DUII accident, with injuries, and it was shown in that case that it was not possible to get a warrant in time to get an accurate blood alcohol test.

In McNeely’s case, the Court soundly rejected the argument that alcohol dissipation establishes a per se exigency in a DUII investigation.  The Court noted that drawing blood from a person is a highly invasive procedure.  The Court was clearly troubled with the thought of granting police this authority in a routine DUII investigation.  The Court held that while alcohol dissipation was one factor that could be considered in determining whether an emergency existed, there had to be other factors present.  While the Court did not expressly set those factors out, the severity of the crime being investigated is undoubtedly a factor.   More importantly, the Court held that the police must demonstrate that they could not have obtained a warrant in a timely manner.   The Court noted that technological advances have made things like telephonic warrants possible and that type of warrant can be obtained fairly quickly.  Also, most jurisdictions have a judge assigned to review warrants 24 hours a day.

This is be an important case for Oregon DUII Attorneys.  This case over rules the Oregon Supreme Court which had adopted an exigency per se rule.  The Portland Criminal Attorneys at James F. O’Rourke, Jr. and Associates work to protect our clients’ constitutional rights in DUII investigations.

Random License Plate Checks by Police May Be Unconstitutional – A Potential Impact on Many Drug Cases and Oregon DUII Cases

The Oregon Supreme Court issued two unusual rulings in a pair of cases on January 10, 2013 that were pending before the Court. State v. Davis and State v. Lumpkins were “affirmed by an equally divided court,” meaning that the original rulings were affirmed because the votes on the court were tied. This is a fairly rare occurrence and happens only when the seven member Court is short one member, creating the possibility of a tie vote.

Both Davis and Lumpkins dealt with the issue of whether or not the police could randomly run license plates from their computerized mobile data terminals to find criminal activity. These random license plate checks are a routine practice for almost all police agencies. The objective, as stated by the police, is to identify stolen vehicles, people who are driving while suspended and people who have outstanding warrants. In fact, the Portland Police and the Washington County Sheriff’s Office each have a special unit that uses license plate recognition technology. This technology allows the police to simply drive through a parking lot and run every plate automatically through DMV and the Law Enforcement Data System.

The attorneys for both Lumpkin and Davis moved to suppress all evidence gained in these stops based on random license plate checks. They advanced two arguments.

First, they argued that random license plate checks were searches that required a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement under Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution and that these searches require probable cause or a reasonable suspicion that some violation of the law was occurring.

Second, they argued that these completely random searches violated the “privileges and immunities clause” of Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution. Both Davis and Lumpkin argued that by randomly and arbitrarily commencing a criminal investigation people were being singled out for investigation and treated differently from other members of the public. At the very least, they argued, the police should have some sort of systematic policy governing when license plates should be checked.

The ACLU filed a “friend of the court” brief. The ACLU pointed out that such practices raised grave concerns that people would be targeted by race or economic status. The police, they argued, could conduct these license plate checks simply because someone looked out of place or because their car looked like a “junker.” The ACLU argued that these checks need to be limited and controlled by some systematic policy in order to hold the police accountable if they used impermissible reasons for initiating a license plate check.

The State of Oregon argued that running a license plate is not a search and that people have no protected privacy interest in this information. Further, the State argued that there is no legal bar against a random license plate check and that there was no proof of any unequal treatment related to the random checks.

Both trial court judges in Davis and Lumpkin denied the Motions to Suppress. The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the trial court rulings, although there was a dissenting opinion.

Because the Oregon Supreme Court could not produce a majority to affirm or reverse, the issue of the permissibility of random license plate checks remains unresolved. It may take several years for another case to rise from the trial court to the Supreme Court on appeal.

Until then, this issue will come up in Drug cases, DUII cases and all criminal cases which are based on a random license plate check.

As Portland criminal defense lawyers, we deal with many cases where the constitutionality of a traffic stop can be a critical issue. This is particularly true in cases involving drug charges and DUII. Mr. O’Rourke has been a Portland Oregon drug crimes defense lawyer since 1978.

Oregon DUII Diversion and Active Duty Military Personnel – Law Change for Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers

Prior to 2011 active duty military personnel, who were charged with DUII were forced to make a hard choice between two unpleasant options.

Many military service members had active duty commitments which prevented them from completing the DUII Diversion Program in the twelve to eighteen months allowed by Oregon Law. See ORS 813.230. This was particularly true for reservists getting called up to active duty and all active duty personnel scheduled for deployment.

They had to choose between entering the DUI Diversion Program to avoid conviction and thereby give up eligibility for deployment, which, most often ends a military career or to give up the right to DUII Diversion and plead guilty and take a criminal conviction with all its consequences including a permanent criminal record.

Most of us who work in the criminal justice system were unhappy that military personnel were in effect being punished more severely than civilians because they were performing a service commitment to our country.

In 2011, Veteran Advocates lobbied the Oregon Legislature to support a bill designed to address this problem. The Legislature responded by enacting into law a bill which modified the laws relating to DUI Diversion to allow the courts to accommodate the needs of active duty military personnel so that they could participate in DUII Diversion.

First, the legislature changed the law to forbid courts from denying entry into the DUII Diversion program simply because the person’s active duty military obligations prevented them from completing the program on the standard Diversion time line. Courts are now authorized to expand the time to complete Diversion for as long as necessary to accommodate active duty service obligations. In addition, the courts are authorized to allow military personnel to complete military treatment programs to satisfy the Diversion treatment requirements.

As an Oregon DUII lawyer, we at James F. O’Rourke, Jr. and Associates have experience representing members of the U.S. Military in DUII and other criminal matters. We understand that criminal cases have serious implications for service members and we strive to minimize or eliminate the impact of a criminal case on a service members career.

As a Portland Criminal Defense Attorney, Mr. O’Rourke has helped a number of military personnel through the Oregon criminal justice system on all kinds of charges to get results which allowed them to continue their careers.

We have helped many veterans returning from overseas duty deal with criminal problems in Oregon. Often, there is a connection between their active duty experiences and criminal conduct. We have represented many veterans who suffer from PTSD.