630
Argued and submitted November 28, 2018, reversed and remanded
November 25, 2020
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARLES DRUMBOR,
Defendant-Respondent.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
16CR14545; A165648 (Control)
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CAROL WILMER DAY,
Defendant-Respondent.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
16CR26756; A165654
478 P3d 987
In this consolidated criminal appeal, the Court of Appeals addresses the
statutory framework requiring an ignition interlock device or IID for drivers who
enter diversion after being charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants. The state appeals from an order granting defendants’ motions to remove
the IID requirement from their respective driving records, arguing that the trial
court erred, because defendants—who chose not to drive during their diversion period—failed to comply with the requirement in ORS 813.635 to submit
a certificate demonstrating that the IID did not record a negative report for 90
consecutive days. Held: The text of ORS 813.635(1) establishes that the notation
requiring the use and installation of an IID remains on a diversion participant’s
driving record until the participant presents a certificate stating that the IID did
not record a negative report for 90 consecutive days. Because defendants must
comply with the requirement in ORS 813.635(1), the trial court erred in granting
defendants’ motions to remove the IID requirement from their driving record.
Reversed and remanded.
David F. Rees, Judge.
Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General argued
the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
Cite as 307 Or App 630 (2020) 631
Scott H. Terrall argued the cause and filed the brief for
respondent Carol Wilmer Day.
Rosalind Lee and Stacy M. Du Clos filed the brief amicus
curiae for Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers.
No appearance for respondent Charles Drumbor.
Before Powers, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge,
and Landau, Senior Judge.*
POWERS, P. J.
Reversed and remanded.
______________
* Egan, C. J., vice Garrett, J. pro tempore.
632 State v. Drumbor/Day
POWERS, P. J.
In this consolidated appeal, we address the statutory
framework requiring an ignition interlock device or IID for
drivers who enter diversion after being charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). More specifically, the question presented in this appeal is whether defendants who decide not to drive during their diversion period
and therefore do not install an IID must nevertheless do so
before the IID requirement is removed from their driving
record. The state appeals from an order granting defendants’
motions to remove the IID requirement from their respective
driving records, arguing that the trial court erred, because
defendants failed to comply with the requirement to submit
a certificate demonstrating that the IID did not record a
negative report for 90 consecutive days. As explained below,
because the statutory framework affirmatively requires drivers to submit a certificate to remove the IID notation from
their driving record, the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motions. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
BACKGROUND
Although each case arose separately and were
later consolidated to consider the motions to remove the
IID requirement, we describe the relevant procedural facts,
which are undisputed, together. Defendants were separately charged by a district attorney information with one
count of DUII, ORS 813.010, and one count of reckless driving, ORS 811.140. They each petitioned the court to enter
diversion under ORS 813.200, whereby they could avoid a
criminal conviction for DUII and obtain a dismissal of that
charge upon successful completion of the diversion. See ORS
813.200; ORS 813.220 (outlining criteria the court shall
consider for whether to allow or deny a diversion petition).
Each defendant also entered into a negotiated agreement
(sometimes known as a “reckless setover agreement”) under
which the reckless driving charge would be dismissed
upon successful completion of diversion. The court allowed
the petitions, and each defendant began a one-year diversion period. As part of the court’s order allowing the petitions, the trial court entered an order mandated by ORS
813.602(3)(a)(A) that defendants must install and use an IID
Cite as 307 Or App 630 (2020) 633
“in any vehicle operated by the person during the period of
the agreement.” Further, as required by ORS 813.604(1), the
court sent a copy of its orders to the Oregon Department of
Transportation, Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division
(DMV), which must place a notation on the driving record of
the person required to install the device.
In each case, defendants refrained from driving
during the diversion period and did not install an IID. At
the end of their respective diversion periods, the trial court
deemed that defendants had successfully completed their
diversions and dismissed the DUII and reckless driving
charges.
Shortly thereafter, each defendant sought to have
the IID requirement removed from their driving record
by filing respective motions for an order to vacate the IID
requirement. The state objected to the motions, arguing
that, before the IID notation can be removed from their
driving records, defendants must provide DMV with a certificate demonstrating no negative reports for 90 consecutive days under ORS 813.635(1).1 The trial court allowed the
parties to join the cases for a hearing and also allowed DMV
to appear as a witness.
At the hearing, defendants argued that the IID
requirement did not apply to diversion participants who
refrained from driving during the diversion period, never
installed an IID, and successfully completed diversion.2
1
ORS 813.635(1) provides:
“Notwithstanding ORS 813.602(1)(b) or (c), (2) or (3), the requirement to
have an ignition interlock device installed in a vehicle continues until the
person submits to the Department of Transportation a certificate from the
ignition interlock device manufacturer’s representative stating that the
device did not record a negative report for the last 90 consecutive days of the
required installation period. The department shall remove the ignition interlock device requirement from the person’s driving record as soon as practicable after the department receives the certificate.”
ORS 813.635(1) has been renumbered and amended since the events of these
cases. See former ORS 813.635(2) (2015), renumbered as ORS 813.635(1) (2017);
ORS 813.635(2) (2015), amended by Or Laws 2017, ch 655, § 13; ORS 813.635(1)
(2017), amended by Or Laws 2019, ch 200, §15. Because neither the renumbering
nor amendments affect the analysis in this case, we cite the current version of the
IID statutes, unless otherwise noted.
2
The arguments at the hearing were primarily presented by defendant
Drumbor, with defendant Day joining in all of the arguments. On appeal, only
634 State v. Drumbor/Day
Under their interpretation of the statutory framework, the
requirement in ORS 813.635(1)—to demonstrate 90 consecutive days without a negative report—was triggered only
when a diversion participant elected to drive during the
diversion period. The state contended that ORS 813.635(1)
did not create a new, separate requirement to install an IID;
rather, ORS 813.635(1) extended the duration of the requirement beyond the diversion agreement until the participant
submitted a certificate from their IID provider to DMV indicating that there had been no negative reports for 90 consecutive days.3 According to the state, the statutory framework only provided two pathways to remove the IID notation
from a driving record: (1) by complying with ORS 813.635 or
(2) by obtaining an order from the court under ORS 813.645.4
Choosing not to drive, in the state’s view, is a way to avoid
the IID requirement during the diversion period but does
not otherwise provide a pathway to the removal of the IID
requirement in its entirety.
The trial court granted defendants’ motions and
concluded that the IID requirement was extinguished when
a participant successfully completes diversion.5 The court
explained:
defendant Day filed an answering brief; defendant Drumbor waived appearance.
Although only Day appears on appeal, we refer to “defendants” collectively for
ease of reference.
3
At the hearing, a deputy district attorney and an assistant attorney general representing DMV both appeared and argued on behalf of the state. For
convenience, we refer to them collectively as the state.
4
ORS 813.645 provides, in part:
“(1) A defendant may apply by motion to the court in which a driving
while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement described in
ORS 813.230 was entered for an order vacating the requirement to install
and use an ignition interlock device if the defendant:
“(a) Has complied with the condition of the diversion agreement described
in ORS 813.602(3) for at least six consecutive months and provides a certificate to the court from the ignition interlock device manufacturer’s representative stating that the device has not recorded a negative report; and
“(b) The defendant has entered into and is in compliance with any treatment program that the person is required to participate in as a condition of
diversion.”
5
The trial court also rejected the state’s argument that the court lacked the
statutory authority to order DMV, which was not a named party in the case, to
remove the IID requirement, concluding that it “retains the authority to determine the duration and vitality of its own orders.” The state does not renew that
argument on appeal, and therefore we do not address it.
Cite as 307 Or App 630 (2020) 635
“By its terms, ORS 813.635[(1)] only continues ‘the
requirement to have an ignition interlock [device] installed
in a vehicle.’ Notably, there is no statutory provision requiring participants in the diversion program to install an
IID; rather the court must order diversion participants to
install an IID in any vehicle a diversion participant drives
during the diversion period. ORS 813.602(3). If the participant does not drive during the diversion period, there
is no statutory or court-ordered requirement to install an
IID, and therefore no requirement to continue under ORS
813.635[(1)].
“…
“Nowhere in the statutory scheme does the Legislature
expressly require diversion participants to install an IID.
It is indisputable that diversion participants may comply
with their diversion agreement, including the court’s order
under ORS 813.602(3), by not driving any vehicle during
the diversion period. It is inconsistent with the text and
context of the statutes to infer a requirement to install an
IID into ORS 813.635[(1)], which according to its terms,
imposes consequences for negative reports, not for refraining from driving during the diversion period.
“…
“This Court concludes that the court order, imposed as a
condition of entry into the DUII diversion program, requiring diversion participants to install an IID in any vehicle
the participant drives during the diversion period is extinguished when the diversion participant successfully completes diversion resulting in dismissal of the DUII charge
and the participant did not drive during the diversion
period. Accordingly, defendants’ motions are GRANTED.”
(Uppercase in original; footnote omitted.)
On appeal, the parties renew their arguments on
the statutory framework governing the IID requirement. To
gain a wider perspective on the issue before us, we asked the
Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (OCDLA) to
consider filing an amicus curiae brief, which it did. OCDLA
largely reinforces defendants’ argument that, successful
diversion participants who did not drive during their diversion agreement periods are not required to install and use
an IID. ORS 813.635(1) continues an existing requirement
636 State v. Drumbor/Day
to install an IID and does not, OCDLA argues, retroactively
create an obligation to install a device, when such a duty did
not previously exist. As a matter of legislative intent, OCDLA
contends that the statute’s use of the definite article “the”
and the word “continues,” both support defendants’ interpretation because they “presuppose a pre-existing installation
requirement and existing device.” In other words, a diversion participant’s duty to install and use an IID is triggered
only when she or he operates any vehicle during the diversion agreement period. Consequently, OCDLA asserts that
a “diversion participant who does not drive is never required
to install an IID, because she never has a duty to install
under the express condition for vehicles ‘operated by the
person during the period of the agreement.’ ” (Emphasis in
original.)
The parties’ dispute presents a question of statutory
construction, which we review for errors of law. OR-OSHA
v. CBI Services, Inc., 356 Or 577, 585,
341 P3d 701 (2014).
When interpreting a statute, our goal is to ascertain the
legislature’s intent by examining the statute’s text, context,
and any relevant legislative history. State v. Gaines,
346 Or
160, 171-72,
206 P3d 1042 (2009).
INTERLOCK IGNITION DEVICE (IID)
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
To give context to the current IID framework, we
begin by describing the framework as it existed before the
legislature’s 2015 amendments. See Gaines, 346 Or at 171-72
(explaining that a court may consider pertinent legislative
history to determine the legislature’s intent).
Under the pre-2015 framework, the IID notation
placed on a person’s driving record automatically expired
once the person was no longer required to use an IID.
That is, the length of the IID requirement depended on the
nature of the DUII violation. See ORS 813.602 (2013) (outlining the length of time required to “install and use an
approved ignition interlock device” depending on whether
it was a person’s first conviction, subsequent conviction, or
if the person entered diversion). After a court ordered the
installation of an IID, ORS 813.604(1) (2013) required the
court to “send a copy of the order” to DMV and required
Cite as 307 Or App 630 (2020) 637
DMV to “note the requirement on the driving record of the
person required to install the device.” For DMV’s purposes,
there was a “set end date on the ignition interlock requirement” and DMV’s computer system automatically removed
the IID notation from a person’s driving record once the relevant length of time in ORS 813.602 had passed. Testimony,
Senate Committee on Judiciary, SB 397, Apr 9, 2015 (statement of Amy Joyce, Legislative Liaison for the Oregon
Department of Transportation) (commenting on DMV’s
computer programming system and how “one day [the IID
is] required, the next day the computer tells the record
it’s no longer required”). Thus, under the pre-2015 framework, there was a “wait-out” period whereby defendants—
including diversion participants—could avoid driving
during the “wait-out” period, never install an IID, and the
notation on their driving record requiring installation of an
IID would automatically be removed regardless of whether
the person ever used an IID.
The 2015 amendments to the IID framework
removed the “wait-out” period. Part of the amendments
in Senate Bill (SB) 397, an omnibus IID bill, created the
90-day requirement now in ORS 813.635. According to the
staff measure summary for SB 397, “a person may not have
their IID removed until they demonstrate ninety days without a negative report. This requirement applies regardless
of whether the person is a diversion participant or has been
convicted of DUII.” The parties and amicus agree that the
legislature enacted ORS 813.635 with the intent of closing
the IID wait-out loophole that existed prior to the statute’s
enactment. The parties disagree, however, on whether the
legislature—in closing the wait-out loophole—specifically
addressed diversion participants who decided not to drive
during their diversion period. Although we agree with defendants that the statute’s legislative history does not conclusively establish that the legislature contemplated diversion
participants like defendants, our review of the text and
context of ORS 813.635 in light of the legislative history
persuades us that the legislature intended that diversion
participants comply with the statute’s requirement for 90
days without a negative report before DMV can remove the
notation from a participant’s driving record.
638 State v. Drumbor/Day
As was true before the 2015 amendments, diversion
participants under the current framework are subject to the
requirements outlined in ORS 813.602(3)(a), which provides,
in part:
“[A]s a condition of a driving while under the influence of
intoxicants diversion agreement:
“(A) The court shall require that an approved ignition interlock device be installed and used in any vehicle
operated by the person during the period of the agreement
when the person has driving privileges if:
“(i) A chemical test of the person’s breath or blood disclosed a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more by
weight of alcohol in the blood of the person as shown by
chemical analysis of the breath or blood[.]”
Similarly, ORS 813.604(1) requires, just as it did before the
2015 amendments, that:
“When a court orders installation of an ignition interlock device pursuant to ORS 813.602, the court shall send
a copy of the order to the Department of Transportation.
The department shall note the requirement on the driving
record of the person required to install the device.”
Thus, the 2015 amendments kept the same requirements
for diversion participants to receive an IID notation on
their driving record once they enter diversion. Importantly,
however, the 2015 addition of ORS 813.635 created an additional step before DMV can remove the IID notation. ORS
813.635(1) provides:
“Notwithstanding ORS 813.602(1)(b) or (c), (2) or (3), the
requirement to have an ignition interlock device installed
in a vehicle continues until the person submits to the
Department of Transportation a certificate from the ignition interlock device manufacturer’s representative stating
that the device did not record a negative report for the last
90 consecutive days of the required installation period.
The department shall remove the ignition interlock device
requirement from the person’s driving record as soon as
practicable after the department receives the certificate.”
Now there is no longer an automatic removal of the IID
requirement from a driving record. Instead, under the plain
terms of ORS 813.635(1), DMV may not remove the IID
Cite as 307 Or App 630 (2020) 639
notation until it has received a certificate stating that the
IID did not record a negative report for 90 consecutive days.
ANALYSIS
Defendants nonetheless assert that, because ORS
813.602(3)(a)(A) specifically provides that a court “shall
require” the installation and use of an IID “in any vehicle
operated by the person during the period of the agreement
when the person has driving privileges,” the 90-day requirement in ORS 813.635(1) does not apply to diversion participants who decide not to drive. The trial court likewise focused
on whether the requirement in ORS 813.635(1) continued
beyond the completion of the diversion period. That focus,
however, is misplaced. Whether ORS 813.635(1) continues
beyond the diversion period does not specifically address the
question of whether the IID requirement is removed from
someone’s DMV record. As noted earlier, defendants neither
challenge the initial DMV notations that were placed on
their records in accordance with ORS 813.604(1) nor dispute
that ORS 813.635(1) explicitly provides for the removal of
that notation “after the department receives the certificate”
from an IID manufacturer’s representative “stating that the
device did not record a negative report for the last 90 consecutive days of the required installation period.” Thus, the
focus by defendants and the trial court on whether a driver
is required to install an IID under ORS 813.602(3) if that
person chooses not to drive during the diversion period fails
to account for the legislature’s specific provision addressing
the removal of the IID notation on a driving record.
Moreover, ORS 813.635(1) contains an important
notwithstanding clause that effectively maintains the obligations under ORS 813.635(1) despite any language to the
contrary under ORS 813.602(3)—one of the statutes listed
in the notwithstanding clause. See O’Mara v. Douglas
County, 318 Or 72, 76,
862 P2d 499 (1993) (“The function
of a ‘notwithstanding’ clause in [a] statute is to except the
remainder of the sentence containing the clause from other
provisions of a law that is referenced in that particular notwithstanding clause.”). The notwithstanding clause excepts
ORS 813.602(3) but otherwise maintains the IID requirement: “Notwithstanding” ORS 813.602(3), among other
640 State v. Drumbor/Day
provisions, “the requirement to have an ignition interlock
device installed in a vehicle continues until” the driver submits to DMV a certificate from the IID’s manufacturer’s representative that shows that the device did not record a negative report for 90 consecutive days. In short, even assuming
defendant’s construction of ORS 813.602(3) is correct and
that defendants who do not drive do not need to install an
IID during their diversion period, the text of ORS 813.635(1)
establishes that the notation requiring the use and installation of an IID remains on a diversion participant’s driving
record until the participant presents a certificate stating
that the IID did not record a negative report for 90 consecutive days.6
Accordingly, because defendants must comply with
the requirement in ORS 813.635(1), the trial court erred in
granting defendants’ motions to remove the IID requirement from their driving record.
Reversed and remanded.
6
We recognize that this interpretation may exacerbate inequities built
into the statutory framework for diversion. Oregonians who choose not to drive
during the course of diversion—either through economic necessity due to the
costs of installing and maintaining an IID or because of other costs associated
with diversion—cannot remove the notation from their driving record until they
do so. Because those costs are embedded in the statutory framework, it is up to
the legislature to address those economic realities if it so chooses.
