Chapter 801

 

      801.020

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      This section does not limit application of statutes lying outside of vehicle code to vehicle code offenses. State v. Baty, 243 Or App 77, 259 P3d 98 (2011)

 

      801.026

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Human powered devices other than bicycles are exempt from entire vehicle code, not just specified portions of code. State v. Smith, 184 Or App 118, 55 P3d 553 (2002)

 

      801.040

 

      See also annotations under ORS 483.036 in permanent edition.

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      City enforcement of overtime parking regulations and meter fee requirements against owners of properly marked vehicles used by disabled persons, (1980) Vol 41, p 94

 

      801.055

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Trial court erred in denying motion to dismiss where Department of Transportation had not promulgated statutorily required rules establishing methods, procedures and devices for determining weights of vehicles. State v. Burghart, 120 Or App 408, 852 P2d 922 (1993)

 

      801.220

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      When sidewalks on opposite sides of street have different widths when lateral lines are connected, unmarked crosswalk takes shape of trapezoid. Rosen v. Wright, 74 Or App 83, 701 P2d 785 (1985)

 

      801.272

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Officer’s request that defendant rate his level of intoxication on scale of 1-10 could not be characterized as field sobriety test. State v. Scott, 111 Or App 308, 826 P2d 71 (1992)

 

      Performance of field sobriety test is not subject to proscription against compelled self-incrimination because performance is not an act of communication. State v. Scott, 111 Or App 308, 826 P2d 71 (1992)

 

      Approval of field sobriety test method by Department of State Police rule does not establish scientific reliability of test. State v. Scott, 121 Or App 308, 854 P2d 991 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

 

      801.360

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Since “any vehicle which is self-propelled,” as used in this section, excludes a vehicle which is not in fact “self-propelled,” defendant could not be convicted for driving while suspended for steering motor vehicle while it was being towed. State v. Duggan, 290 Or 369, 622 P2d 316 (1981)

 

      801.385

 

      See also annotations under ORS 483.002 to 483.030 in permanent edition.

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      A member of private survey crew working on a road is a pedestrian under the definition in this section. Minato v. Ferrare, 295 Or 22, 663 P2d 1240 (1983)

 

      801.395

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Term “police officer” embraces professional law enforcement officer entrusted by government with maintenance of public peace and order, enforcement of laws and prevention and detection of crime. State v. Kurtz, 350 Or 65, 249 P3d 1271 (2011)

 

      801.400

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Under this section, “open to the public” means, at least, roads to which public has been given access for purpose of encouraging business with owners of roads, and evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction for reckless driving on road located entirely within private housing development. State v. Brusseau, 33 Or App 501, 577 P2d 529 (1978)

 

      Where there was testimony that there was no “attempt to block off members of the public” from use of apartment parking lot and that lot was “open to the public,” there was sufficient evidence to find that parking lot was “premises open to the public” and conviction for driving while suspended on parking lot was proper. State v. Mulder, 290 Or 899, 629 P2d 816 (1981)

 

      Where the record contained evidence that the actual use of the streets of a privately owned condominium development did include general public and the access to the premises was not effectively or systematically restricted, there was sufficient evidence for jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the streets of the development were “premises open to the public.” State v. Scott, 61 Or App 205, 655 P2d 1094 (1982)

 

      Where trial court instructed jury that the term “premises open to the public” included any premises from which there was no attempt to block off members of the public, this could have led the jury to believe a failure to “block off” public access was determinative of the issue in a manner that was not required by the statute and the instruction was therefore error. State v. Scott, 61 Or App 205, 655 P2d 1094 (1982)

 

      801.485

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Requested jury instruction regarding pedestrian’s right of way on sidewalk was properly refused where neither testimony nor exhibits demarcated “adjacent property line.” Nyman v. Lang, 81 Or App 361, 724 P2d 944 (1986)

 

      801.590

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Defendant’s unlawful use of fork lift truck constituted unlawful use of “vehicle,” notwithstanding that truck was used for farm operations and was not licensed for operation on public roads. State v. Essig, 31 Or App 639, 571 P2d 170 (1977), Sup Ct review denied