Straight Talking on The Law

Theft Charges in Oregon. Avoiding a Conviction Through a Civil Compromise

By: Ryan Anfuso

A frequent question we get from clients who are charged with theft in Oregon is how exactly the arrest or conviction will impact them.  Often the very first thing we hear from a client is…”I have never been convicted of a crime before and I recently was arrested and charged with misdemeanor Theft. I am guilty of the charge, does that mean I may just as well plead guilty without a lawyer and be convicted? If I am convicted I could lose my job!”

The answer is, even if you did commit the crime, you should not plead guilty without talking to an experienced Oregon criminal defense attorney. You may be able to get the charge dismissed through a civil compromise.

A civil compromise is an agreement between you and the injured party wherein both parties agree to certain terms and the result is a dismissal of the charge if accepted by the court. Often times this means that you would agree to compensate the injured party for any damages they may have suffered. There are a number of charges in Oregon that can be dismissed upon execution of a civil compromise agreement, and misdemeanor Theft is one of them. 

A civil compromise agreement is authorized by ORS 135.703 – ORS 135.709. A civil compromise agreement is available to a narrow class of misdemeanor criminal charges. Most domestic violence offenses are not subject to civil compromise, i.e. offenses committed by one family or household member against another family or household member if the crime was either Assault in the Fourth Degree, Assault in the Third Degree, Menacing, Recklessly Endangering Another Person (under certain circumstances this charge can be compromised), Harassment or Strangulation.

Many driving and non driving crimes can also be civilly compromised such as Failure to Perform the Duties of a Driver (Hit and Run), Criminal Mischief, Trespassing and Recklessly Endangering to name a few. If you are charged with any of these crimes in Oregon you should contact a lawyer and discuss your options.

Just because you may be guilty doesn’t mean you don’t have some very good options to avoid the harsh impact a criminal conviction will have on your life.

Harris Law Firm offers a free 15 minute telephone interview with people charged with crimes in Oregon. We can usually let you know if you could qualify for a civil compromise, and quote you a flat fee for the cost.

Ryan Anfuso is an Oregon criminal law attorney. He practices at Harris Law Firm, a general practice law firm with offices in Hillsboro, Portland, and Tualatin Oregon. 

Diversion in Oregon. Ignition Interlock Requirement and Work Vehicles

By: Ryan Anfuso

You’re on Diversion. You avoided a DUII conviction. That’s good. Now As part of the DUII Diversion agreement, the court ordered that an approved ignition interlock device (IID) be installed in any vehicle operated by you during the period of diversion. Violation of this section is a Class A traffic violation in Oregon. You were informed by the court and your lawyer that if you drive in violation of this section you can be terminated both from the Diversion program and be sentenced on DUII charge.  But what about a work vehicle? Does that have to have the IID installed, or are there any exceptions to this requirement?

The plain text of the statute seems to indicate the answer is no. But, as with many interpretations of law, the answer is….maybe. It’s arguable that you are eligible to drive an employer owned vehicle within the course and scope your employment without installing the ignition interlock device on an employer owned vehicle so long as your employer is notified of your participation in the diversion program.

The ignition interlock requirement during diversion is a mandatory requirement that began in January of 2012. Sometimes when new legislation takes effect, the old statutes that were in place no longer make sense. In the case of ignition interlock, there is a good argument that you can drive an employer owned vehicle without an ignition interlock device if you are required in the course and scope of your employment to operate a motor vehicle owned by your employer, and that your employer has notice that you are operating the vehicle while you are participating in the diversion program and would otherwise be required to have an ignition interlock device installed.

                The current law, ORS 813.606, only allows for this exception under narrow circumstances. In order to qualify for the exception as it presently stands, you must either be convicted of DUII or be operating on a hardship permit resulting from a suspension based on either a failure to blow or a breath test failure. In the case of DUII diversion, you are not convicted and therefore the exception for a suspension resulting from a conviction would not apply. Furthermore, because your license was not suspended by entering the diversion program you may not be operating under a hardship permit, and therefore the exception for a hardship permit doesn’t apply.

Nonetheless, it is clear that the legislature intended to create an exception to the ignition interlock requirement when an employee is operating an employer owned vehicle in the course and scope of their employment.

 Though I cannot promise you that you would not be found in violation of either the Diversion agreement if you are operating an employer owned vehicle under the circumstances described above, there is a very good argument you would not be in violation if you were operating such a vehicle provided you were operating it in the course and scope of employment and that you have proof of employer notification with you in the car.

If you had an attorney represent you in your diversion, you need to contact that lawyer and ask his or her advice on this matter. It is not settled law, and the plain text of the new diversion law doesn’t provide for an exception. 

 

Ryan Anfuso is a Portland DUII Attorney practicing Criminal Defense Law at Harris Law Firm.

 

BAC App's. What Were You Thinking?

By: Robert Harris, Oregon DUI Attorney

I'm investigating whether I should invest in an app for our law firm. I was thinking how it would go together, what should be included, and what functions we could provide that would be valuable to our clients.

Since we do a fair amount of Oregon DUII cases, I thought it may be interesting to include a function that calculated your blood alcohol content (BAC). I saw several BAC calculators on iTunes, and I was considering incorporating one into our app.

They're pretty simple, and all work about the same. You just put in your gender and weight, then you track your drinks by type, volume and time consumed. Using what is
called the Widmark Formula, these apps then calculate an estimate of your current BAC. So hopefully, you know if you're safe to drive.

That sounded like a nice value added item for clients. Then I started to reconsider. What would happen if a client had used that app, then was arrested for DUII?

 Officers always ask drivers when they started drinking, how much they had, and when they stopped drinking. Obviously, this is great information for an officer to have. And of course, many drivers will say...two or three drinks. But what if you logged your drinking that evening on the Harris Law Firm app?

Officers have found incriminating photos, texts and emails on phones. Smart phones are the personal computer, social networking hub, diary, message center, three ring binders of our time. Though I haven't seen it happen yet, someday officers are gong to ask to check every smart phone of every DUI defendant to see if there is a BAC app on it. 

Saving a detailed log of your drinking....? Maybe not such a good idea. It is not going to be a part of our Harris Law app design.

Oregon Medical Marijuana Program and PTSD

 

By: Robert Harris, Harris Law Firm

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - PTSD - can be caused  by any traumatic event and to anyone. It is particularly common among our military members. 

Now, Oregon medical marijauna advocates are laying the groundwork to exand the use of medical marijuana to people who suffer from PTSD. A recent article in the Oregonian discusses the movement to get PTSD approved as one of he qualifying conditions for medical marijuana.

Washington County law enforcement has been particularly active in prosecuting people whom it believes  have crossed the line between lawful medical marijuana use, cultivation and distribution, and unlawfully selling marijuana. So for Washington county residents who suffer from PTSD, the expansion of the medical marijuana laws could be a godsend.