State v. Vandepoll

The majority concludes that the revocation notice that MVD sent defendant “substantially complied with the requirements of former ORS 809.620(2). 118 Or App at 196. The revocation notice that MVD sent defendant did not comply with the requirements offormer ORS 809.620(2), and the trial court erred by admitting evidence that his license had been revoked. Accordingly, I dissent.1

At the time MVD sent defendant the notice, former ORS 809.620(2) provided:

“A notice [that a person’s driving privileges will be revoked, because the person is an habitual traffic offender] shall inform the person of all…