Oregon's rule on DUI penalties turns on a feature the national template does not capture: BAC limits: 0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21. A first offense: First-offense DUII is typically a misdemeanor Class A with fines, possible jail, license suspension, diversion eligibility for many first offenders, and ignition-interlock conditions. Felony threshold: A third DUII within 10 years can be a felony; DUII causing serious injury/death can also be a felony. The controlling authority is Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010. Lookback: Prior DUII convictions within 10 years (and longer for felony habitual tracks) enhance penalties.. Ignition interlock: Ignition interlock is required for most DUII offenders as a condition of hardship permits or reinstatement.
Key takeaways
- BAC limits: 0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21
- Lookback period: Prior DUII convictions within 10 years (and longer for felony habitual tracks) enhance penalties.
- First-offense range: First-offense DUII is typically a misdemeanor Class A with fines, possible jail, license suspension, diversion eligibility for many first offenders, and ignition-interlock conditions.
- Felony threshold: A third DUII within 10 years can be a felony; DUII causing serious injury/death can also be a felony.
- Ignition interlock: Ignition interlock is required for most DUII offenders as a condition of hardship permits or reinstatement.
- Primary authority: Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010.
Worked example under Oregon law
The illustration below uses only rules already stated for Oregon. It is a research hypothetical, not a prediction of what a court will do.
A driver in Oregon is charged with a first impaired-driving offense and wants to know what the statute actually sets.
- Start with the alcohol limits: 0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21
- Read the first-offense range: First-offense DUII is typically a misdemeanor Class A with fines, possible jail, license suspension, diversion eligibility for many first offenders, and ignition-interlock conditions.
- Ask when the charge becomes a felony: A third DUII within 10 years can be a felony; DUII causing serious injury/death can also be a felony. Lookback: Prior DUII convictions within 10 years (and longer for felony habitual tracks) enhance penalties.
- Interlock: Ignition interlock is required for most DUII offenders as a condition of hardship permits or reinstatement.
Oregon DUII under ORS 813.010 proceeds in circuit court with parallel DMV implied-consent suspensions. Diversion is a common first-offender path.
Blood alcohol limits in Oregon
0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21
Lookback window for prior offenses
Prior DUII convictions within 10 years (and longer for felony habitual tracks) enhance penalties.
First-offense penalties
First-offense DUII is typically a misdemeanor Class A with fines, possible jail, license suspension, diversion eligibility for many first offenders, and ignition-interlock conditions.
When a Oregon DUI becomes a felony
A third DUII within 10 years can be a felony; DUII causing serious injury/death can also be a felony.
Ignition interlock and license consequences
Ignition interlock is required for most DUII offenders as a condition of hardship permits or reinstatement.
How a typical Oregon DUI case unfolds
Oregon DUII under ORS 813.010 proceeds in circuit court with parallel DMV implied-consent suspensions. Diversion is a common first-offender path.
Related Oregon guides
- How to file for divorce in Oregon
- Child custody and parenting time in Oregon
- Security deposit return in Oregon
Case law: DUI penalties in Oregon
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN LOUIS OSBURN, Appellant
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN LOUIS OSBURN, Appellant, 13 Or. App. 92 (1973)
…anscript filed with this appeal, defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. ① He was taken to the police station where the arresting officer asked if he would take a breathalyzer test. Defendant agreed, and took the test. It revealed .18 percent alcohol in defendant’s blood. The arresting officer said nothing to defendant about any right to o…
On DUI penalties, STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN LOUIS OSBURN, Appellant speaks to the Oregon dispute in this passage: "He was taken to the police station where the arresting officer asked if he would take a breathalyzer test. Defendant agreed, and took the test. It revealed .18 percent alcohol in defendant’s blood." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ALCUIN ALVIN ANNEN (No. 74546), Appellant
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ALCUIN ALVIN ANNEN (No. 74546), Appellant, 12 Or. App. 203 (1973)
…a policeman who has probable cause to believe a person was driving under the influence of alcohol from requiring that person to submit to a chemical test of his blood, breath, saliva, urine, etc. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); Heer v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 252 Or. 455, 450 P.2d 533 (1969); State v. Cram, 176 Or. 577, 160 P.2d 28…
Practitioners open STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ALCUIN ALVIN ANNEN (No. 74546), Appellant when Oregon DUI penalties turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); Heer v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 252 Or. 455, 450 P.2d 533 (1969); State v. Cram, 176 Or. 577, 160 P." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL ALLEN ROSENBOHM, Defendant-Appellant
*648 WOLLHEIM, P. J. Defendant appeals his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010. He contends that he did not have a fair trial because the prosecutor stated in rebuttal closing argument that, to the extent an Intoxilyzer errs, it errs in favor of defendant and that defendant’s blood alcohol content “could have been as high as .40 percent,” wh…
Oregon opinions such as STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL ALLEN ROSENBOHM, Defendant-Appellant are cited where DUI penalties is disputed. The court stated: "WOLLHEIM, P. J. Defendant appeals his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
DORAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON Et Al, Respondents
DORAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON Et Al, Respondents, 270 Or. 758 (1974)
…inal prosecution of the plaintiff in the district court for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, ORS 483.992 (2), and driving a motor vehicle with .15% or more by weight of alcohol in the blood, ORS 483.999. The plaintiff was convicted of both charges and secured a writ of review in the circuit court. Plaintiff asserted three grounds for review: (1) that there wa…
Oregon opinions such as DORAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON Et Al, Respondents are cited where DUI penalties is disputed. The court stated: "ORS 483.992 (2), and driving a motor vehicle with .15% or more by weight of alcohol in the blood, ORS 483.999. The plaintiff was convicted of both charges and secured a writ of review in the circuit court." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. CHESTER CLARK, Appellant
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. CHESTER CLARK, Appellant, 35 Or. App. 851 (1978)
…er is an alternative statutory definition of the offense of driving under the influence of intoxicants, not a conclusive presumption. Defendant’s second point raises a question about a portion of State v. Torrey which, upon reconsideration, we are now convinced was unduly expansive. In Torrey, we held that, where a defendant is charged with driving under the influence of intoxi…
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. CHESTER CLARK, Appellant is worth reading on Oregon DUI penalties because the court put the point in its own words: "Defendant’s second point raises a question about a portion of State v. Torrey which, upon reconsideration, we are now convinced was unduly expansive." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN FRANKLIN STOVER, Appellant
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN FRANKLIN STOVER, Appellant, 14 Or. App. 559 (1973)
…s when the police had probable cause to believe he had been driving under the influence just before the accident that rendered him unconscious. In reaching that conclusion we interpreted ORS 483.636 in conjunction with the rest of the Implied Consent Law and concluded the “expressly consents” phrase in ORS 483.636 means, in effect, “unless expressly refuses.” In State v. Annen,…
On DUI penalties, STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN FRANKLIN STOVER, Appellant speaks to the Oregon dispute in this passage: "In reaching that conclusion we interpreted ORS 483.636 in conjunction with the rest of the Implied Consent Law and concluded the “expressly consents” phrase in ORS 483.636 means, in effect, “unless expressly refuses.” In State v." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONALD P. MCFERON, Appellant
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONALD P. MCFERON, Appellant, 166 Or. App. 110 (2000)
*112 WOLLHEIM, J. Defendant appeals from his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony by “drug recognition experts,” in denying his motion for a mistrial, in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, and in instructing the jury. For the following reaso…
Oregon opinions such as STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONALD P. MCFERON, Appellant are cited where DUI penalties is disputed. The court stated: "WOLLHEIM, J. Defendant appeals from his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Frequently asked questions
What is the legal BAC limit in Oregon?
0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21
Is a first DUI a felony in Oregon?
A third DUII within 10 years can be a felony; DUII causing serious injury/death can also be a felony.
Will I need an ignition interlock device?
Ignition interlock is required for most DUII offenders as a condition of hardship permits or reinstatement.
This guide covers Oregon impaired-driving law as of 2026. Sentencing grids, administrative DMV rules, and local diversion programs change — verify the live statute and speak with counsel about your charging document.