Loading policy item
HB 4041
HB 4041 downgrades criminal driving while suspended charges based on criminal mischief or reckless driving from misdemeanors to violations, increases presumptive sentences for felony fleeing/attempting to elude when the offender has priors or causes injury, creates a streamlined post-conviction relief process for convictions by nonunanimous jury verdicts, establishes a court petition procedure allowing the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the state to recapture persons erroneously released due to sentence calculation errors (with procedural safeguards), mandates DOC to grant 120 days of transitional leave to specific erroneously released individuals who comply with supervision, and raises the dollar thresholds for theft and criminal mischief degrees.
Generated explanation · Enrolled · Analyzed 8/21/2026 · Open official Enrolled text
Generated analysis of Enrolled text; it does not establish that the bill applies to you. Read the full decision brief.
No upcoming event is verified in the available records.
Enactment and effective dates are separate. Effective dates have not been verified here; provisions may take effect at different times. Check the official text.
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
This measure became law. Enactment does not establish that every provision is already effective; check each effective date in the official text.
HB 4041 downgrades criminal driving while suspended charges based on criminal mischief or reckless driving from misdemeanors to violations, increases presumptive sentences for felony fleeing/attempting to elude when the offender has priors or causes injury, creates a streamlined post-conviction relief process for convictions by nonunanimous jury verdicts, establishes a court petition procedure allowing the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the state to recapture persons erroneously released due to sentence calculation errors (with procedural safeguards), mandates DOC to grant 120 days of transitional leave to specific erroneously released individuals who comply with supervision, and raises the dollar thresholds for theft and criminal mischief degrees.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The mandatory grant of 120 days transitional leave for individuals released due to presentence credit errors suggests a legislative intent to provide a structured grace period for compliant offenders caught in administrative calculation loops, balancing enforcement with harm reduction. The removal of misdemeanor status for driving while suspended due to mischief or reckless driving may reflect an effort to reduce collateral consequences for minor infractions, though the text does not explicitly state this purpose.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Enrolled; Staff Measure Summary B
Charges are downgraded from Class A misdemeanors to Class A violations, reducing potential jail exposure and collateral consequences.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Presumptive sentencing categories increase for repeat offenders and those causing physical or serious physical injury, potentially extending prison terms and supervision requirements.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
A new 120-day filing window and limited evidence rules create a specific pathway to vacate convictions, lowering the evidentiary burden compared to general post-conviction relief.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
DOC may petition courts to return them to custody if post-prison supervision is not completed; compliant individuals released during the error window are entitled to 120 days of transitional leave.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Higher value thresholds mean conduct involving property valued between $150 and $1,499 may be charged as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, and damage over $750/$1,500 triggers higher degrees.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Gain notification rights regarding recapture petitions and sentencing modifications; may face reduced felony charges for property crimes depending on value.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
DOC must implement new petition procedures, probable cause hearings within five days, and notice protocols for recapture cases, increasing administrative workload.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Courts must appoint counsel for financially eligible persons in recapture and judgment modification proceedings, increasing public defense caseloads.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Prosecutors and law enforcement must adjust charging practices for property crimes as felony thresholds rise, potentially reducing felony filings for mid-range thefts.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Official sources indicate minimal revenue and fiscal impact for state and local governments.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Sources: Revenue Impact Statement B; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Erroneously released individual compliant with supervision
A person released due to a presentence credit error who has completed post-prison supervision cannot be recaptured under the new prohibition; additionally, if released during the specified window, they receive 120 days of transitional leave to stabilize housing and employment before any potential resolution.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Violent fleeing suspect with priors
A defendant with two or more prior elude convictions who causes serious physical injury faces a Category 8 person felony classification, significantly increasing the presumptive sentence and triggering enhanced supervision conditions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
The petition process and judgment modification authority create discretion that, if applied broadly or without rigorous record constraints, could undermine due process rights.
Sources · Enrolled
The measure enhances public safety and sentence integrity through stricter elude penalties and recapture mechanisms while mitigating potential harms from administrative errors via procedural protections and transitional leave, at the cost of reduced criminalization for certain property crimes and driving violations.
Streamlined post-conviction relief reduces barriers for individuals with nonunanimous jury convictions to seek new trials.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Mandatory transitional leave provides a structured period for erroneously released individuals to maintain stability, potentially reducing recidivism risks associated with abrupt recapture.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Higher property crime thresholds align statutory values with inflation, reducing felony classifications for mid-range offenses.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Increased elude penalties may lead to longer prison terms and expanded supervision for offenders, raising incarceration costs.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Recapture petitions allow detention pending hearing based on public safety, which could restrict liberty for individuals whose release was due to administrative error.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
The enrolled version incorporates the Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed. Key changes include adding a prohibition on filing recapture petitions if post-prison supervision is completed, changing DOC's authority to grant transitional leave from permissive to mandatory for eligible individuals, and adding eligibility for short-term transitional leave under department rules as a condition for the 120-day leave.
Added prohibition on recapture petitions when post-prison supervision is completed.
Protects individuals who have fulfilled supervision terms from being returned to custody due to sentence calculation errors.
Sources · Enrolled; Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Changed DOC's authority to grant transitional leave from 'may' to 'shall'.
Mandates relief for eligible erroneously released individuals, removing agency discretion.
Sources · Enrolled; Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Added condition that person must be eligible for short-term transitional leave under department rules.
Ensures the 120-day leave is only granted to individuals who meet existing program criteria.
Sources · Enrolled; Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Tradeoff: The amendments strengthen protections for erroneously released individuals by mandating transitional leave and barring recapture after supervision completion, reducing enforcement discretion while maintaining sentence integrity through other recapture mechanisms.
Model self-rating: high. The enrolled bill text is complete and unambiguous regarding statutory changes. Official supporting sources confirm minimal fiscal impact and provide context on legislative issues discussed. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The measure would reduce penalties for certain driving-while-suspended offenses and would raise property crime value thresholds, both delayed until January 1, 2027. It would establish a strict 120-day filing window for post-conviction relief claims based on nonunanimous jury verdicts. For individuals released due to Department of Corrections sentence calculation errors between July 10, 2025, and the bill’s effective date, it would create a court petition process for recapture but would impose an absolute cutoff prohibiting petitions once post-prison supervision is completed. It also mandates DOC to grant up to 120 days of transitional leave to eligible individuals released due to calculation errors during that window.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed; Staff Measure Summary B
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The text addresses administrative and legal uncertainty following Oregon Supreme Court rulings that invalidated prior recapture authority, by replacing discretionary departmental action with a judicial petition process and establishing a definitive expiration tied to supervision completion.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Potential effect if enacted: may be returned to custody via court petition if post-prison supervision is incomplete; otherwise, they are statutorily protected from recapture. Those meeting eligibility receive up to 120 days of transitional leave.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Would have to handle new recapture petitions and nonunanimous verdict post-conviction claims within strict timelines, including mandatory counsel appointment, five-day hearing scheduling, and limited evidentiary scopes.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Face a hard 120-day deadline to file post-conviction relief claims for nonunanimous jury convictions. Prosecutors gain a structured petition pathway for recapture but lose the ability to pursue it after supervision completion.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Theft and criminal mischief thresholds increase on January 1, 2027, potentially reclassifying some conduct from felonies to misdemeanors or misdemeanors to violations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Courts would have to appoint counsel and schedule hearings within five days of recapture petitions. DOC would have to notify courts, prosecutors, and defendants when recomputing credits changes release dates. Prosecutors face a hard 120-day deadline for nonunanimous verdict claims.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Minimal fiscal impact is projected for state and local governments. Eligibility for transitional leave is now mandatory if conditions are met, including compliance with department rules.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Staff Measure Summary B
The supervision completion cutoff would create a bright-line rule that would limit indefinite custody uncertainty but may leave some released individuals permanently free despite calculation errors.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Individual released due to calculation error
Potential effect if enacted: Completes post-prison supervision, avoids recapture entirely under the statutory cutoff, and receives the full 120 days of transitional leave, successfully reintegrating without further legal entanglement.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Individual released due to calculation error
Potential effect if enacted: Fails to file a petition within the 120-day window for post-conviction relief, or completes supervision early, permanently escaping accountability for the original sentence despite DOC's later determination of an error.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
The text would legally permit judicial oversight and limited recapture but would create risk if administrative actors ignore the supervision expiration or stretch ambiguous-term modification authority beyond the original record.
Sources · Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: The measure balances public safety and sentencing accuracy by allowing limited recapture through judicial oversight against individual liberty and finality by imposing a strict post-supervision cutoff and mandatory transitional leave. Upsides include clear procedural timelines, prevention of indefinite custody uncertainty, and inflation-aligned property crime thresholds. Downsides include potential permanent avoidance of served time due to administrative errors and immediate court/counsel workload increases for new petition types.
Potential effect if enacted: Clear procedural timelines and evidentiary limits reduce litigation ambiguity.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Prevents indefinite custody uncertainty by tying recapture eligibility to supervision completion.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Aligns property crime thresholds with inflation, potentially reducing felony classifications for lower-value conduct.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: may allow some offenders to permanently avoid served time due to administrative calculation errors.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Would create immediate court and public defense workload increases for new petition types and mandatory counsel appointments.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is strictly derived from the provided Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed text and official staff summaries. No external assumptions or legislative intent are inferred beyond explicit statutory language and documented background context. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The amendment would prohibit the Department of Corrections from petitioning a court to return individuals to custody for sentence calculation errors once they have completed or been discharged from post-prison supervision, while simultaneously requiring the department to grant up to 120 days of transitional leave to those released between July 10, 2025, and the measure's effective date due to such errors.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Sources: Amendment -A12 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to resolve uncertainty around recapturing individuals released due to 2025 sentence recalculations by establishing a clear statutory cutoff tied to supervision completion, balancing finality and reintegration stability with structured transitional support.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A12 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Potential effect if enacted: Gain a statutory deadline that bars recapture petitions after post-prison supervision ends, and become eligible for mandatory up-to-120-day transitional leave rather than discretionary processing.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A12 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Would have to track supervision completion statuses precisely to comply with the new recapture cutoff, and would have to process transitional leave for the specified cohort without discretion.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A12 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Would experience a reduction in late-stage recapture petitions once supervision terms conclude, but would have to continue processing remaining petitions and associated hearings under existing procedural timelines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A12 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Retain notification rights during pending recapture proceedings but lose the ability to influence or object to recapture decisions once a person completes post-prison supervision.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
DOC case managers would have to verify supervision discharge dates accurately to avoid filing barred petitions. Individuals in the affected cohort would receive structured transitional leave for housing, employment, or treatment reintegration before any potential return to custody.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A12 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Fiscal impact is assessed as minimal by official state offices. Eligibility for transitional leave would depend on compliance with supervision conditions, conviction eligibility under existing rules, and original court authorization for the program.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: IS_Impact HB 4041 A12; Fiscal Impact Statement B
The amendment would create a hard statutory barrier to recapture after supervision ends, reducing litigation over retroactive custody but increasing reliance on supervision compliance to manage public safety during the reentry period.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A12 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Individuals released due to sentence calculation errors between July 10, 2025, and enactment
Potential effect if enacted: An individual released due to a calculation error completes three years of post-prison supervision, secures stable employment, and rebuilds family ties. The amendment legally bars DOC from recapturing them for the original sentence error, allowing full community reintegration without disruption.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A12 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Individuals released due to sentence calculation errors between July 10, 2025, and enactment
Potential effect if enacted: An individual released due to a calculation error commits serious new offenses during supervision but evades detection until after discharge. Once supervision ends, DOC loses all statutory authority under this measure to return them for the original offense, potentially leaving victims without closure and creating a permanent accountability gap for the underlying crime.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A12 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
The statutory cutoff relies entirely on accurate administrative classification of supervision status. Misclassification or premature discharge certification would bypass the intended public safety review period, creating a de facto amnesty mechanism not authorized by the text.
Sources · Amendment -A12 — proposed amendment; House Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The amendment prioritizes finality and reintegration stability for released individuals over the state's ability to correct past sentencing errors once supervision concludes, trading potential public safety continuity for guaranteed transitional support and reduced judicial burden.
Potential effect if enacted: Predictable release timelines reduce litigation and administrative overhead for courts and DOC.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A12 — proposed amendment
Mandatory transitional leave would provide structured reentry support, potentially lowering recidivism risk during the critical post-release period.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A12 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Potential effect if enacted: Permanent loss of recourse for original offenses if supervision ends, potentially leaving victims without closure or public safety mechanisms for that specific crime.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A12 — proposed amendment
Reliance on accurate supervision discharge tracking would create administrative vulnerability; errors could inadvertently shield individuals who have not fully satisfied their legal obligations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A12 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text, official revenue/fiscal statements, and staff measure summaries. No enacted provisions or external speculation are used. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The bill reclassifies certain driving-while-suspended offenses, increases sentencing for felony eluding, would establish a strict 120-day window and evidentiary limits for post-conviction relief claims based on nonunanimous jury verdicts, would create a court-petition process for the Department of Corrections to recapture individuals released due to sentence computation errors, and would raise the dollar thresholds for theft and criminal mischief degrees. It would take effect immediately upon passage but delays most substantive changes to January 1, 2027.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure appears designed to address administrative gaps following Oregon Supreme Court rulings on presentence incarceration credits and to adjust property crime thresholds for inflation. The text creates a judicial petition process for the Department of Corrections to recapture individuals released due to calculation errors, directly responding to prior departmental overreach challenges, while raising theft and mischief dollar amounts that have not been updated since 2009.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Fewer suspension triggers would result in misdemeanor or felony charges for driving while suspended, with many falling to violation status instead.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Sentencing guidelines would impose higher crime categories for repeat eluding offenses or when the act would cause physical or serious physical injury.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
A new petition process would allow DOC to seek court orders to return individuals to custody if released due to material sentence computation errors, alongside stricter rules on applying presentence credit and mandatory notifications for release date changes.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Would have to file post-conviction relief claims within 120 days of the measure's passage, subject to strict burden-of-proof requirements and limited admissible evidence types.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Higher dollar thresholds mean some thefts and criminal mischief acts would be downgraded to lower offense levels or violations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Prosecutors would charge fewer driving-while-suspended cases as misdemeanors or felonies, potentially reducing court dockets but shifting enforcement toward violation citations. DOC would have to file recapture petitions promptly and secure probable cause hearings within five days, requiring additional administrative resources and legal review. Courts would face a concentrated influx of post-conviction claims within the 120-day window, necessitating expedited processing. The hard deadline for nonunanimous verdict claims may limit access to relief for individuals who discover their constitutional violation later. DOC's ability to petition for recapture introduces a new procedural safeguard but would require clear and convincing evidence of public safety risk before detention pending hearing.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Erroneously released individuals
A person released due to a clerical error that reduced their sentence by five years could petition the court for up to 120 days of transitional leave instead of immediate recapture, allowing them to maintain employment and family ties while legally resolving the error.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Defendants with delayed discovery of constitutional defects
Potential effect if enacted: An individual convicted in 2018 by an 11-1 jury verdict discovers the constitutional violation in 2027 but misses the 120-day filing deadline after passage, resulting in permanent loss of the right to challenge the conviction despite the underlying constitutional defect.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
The text would legally permit DOC to petition for recapture and detention pending a hearing if public safety is shown by clear and convincing evidence. A potential unlawful outcome could arise if DOC misclassifies routine administrative delays or minor calculation disputes as material errors, using the petition process to extend supervision or incarceration beyond lawful limits, especially if courts rubber-stamp petitions without rigorous scrutiny of the statutory standard.
Sources · House Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The measure balances public safety and sentencing integrity against individual liberty by creating a streamlined recapture process for erroneously released individuals while imposing strict deadlines and evidentiary hurdles that may limit post-conviction relief access. Upsides include correcting administrative errors, aligning property crime thresholds with inflation, and standardizing eluding penalties. Downsides include hard filing deadlines that may bar legitimate claims and recapture provisions that risk over-detention if applied broadly to non-material computational disputes.
Corrects administrative errors in sentencing calculations and would provide a structured judicial pathway for resolution.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Aligns property crime thresholds with inflation, reducing overcriminalization of low-level theft and mischief.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Standardizes sentencing for felony eluding based on repeat offenses and injury outcomes.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Hard filing deadlines may bar legitimate post-conviction claims for individuals who discover constitutional violations late.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Recapture provisions risk over-detention if applied broadly to non-material computational disputes.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Reduced misdemeanor/felony classifications for driving while suspended may shift enforcement burdens to local jurisdictions and increase violation citation processing.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Model self-rating: high. The analysis is grounded exclusively in the provided bill text and official staff summaries. No external speculation or unverified claims are included. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
If adopted, the amendment would immediately would take effect but delay key provisions to January 1, 2027. It would raise property crime thresholds for theft and criminal mischief, reduce certain driving-while-suspended offenses from misdemeanors to violations, increase penalties for felony eluding and repeat eluding, create a strict 120-day window and limited evidence rules for post-conviction relief based on nonunanimous jury verdicts, and establish new court-petition procedures for the Department of Corrections to recapture individuals released due to sentence calculation errors while adding transitional leave options.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure addresses a specific administrative crisis where the Department of Corrections released individuals due to sentence computation errors that were later deemed mistaken, prompting litigation over recapture authority. It also adjusts property crime thresholds likely to account for inflation since 2009 and streamlines post-conviction relief procedures following state constitutional changes regarding jury unanimity.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Would face reduced misdemeanor classifications, potentially lowering these offenses to violations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Would face felony charges and specific sentencing categories based on priors and injury severity.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Would have a narrow 120-day window to seek relief with restricted evidence rules.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Would manage new recapture petition procedures for individuals released due to calculation errors, including mandatory counsel appointment and hearing timelines.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Would see higher thresholds for felony and misdemeanor classifications.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Courts would have to handle recapture petitions within five days, appoint counsel if eligible, and hold hearings. The Department of Corrections would have to notify sentencing courts, prosecutors, and defendants if a release date changes after 140 days into a sentence. Prosecutors face a tight deadline for nonunanimous verdict claims and would have to navigate restricted evidence rules. Property crime defendants may avoid felony charges due to higher thresholds. The Department of Corrections gains authority to petition for recapture but would have to meet clear-and-convincing evidence standards for detention pending a hearing.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Individual released due to a genuine calculation error
Potential effect if enacted: Avoids immediate re-incarceration by qualifying for 120 days of transitional leave, successfully completes supervision, and avoids a new custody petition.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Defendant convicted decades ago by a nonunanimous jury
Potential effect if enacted: Misses the strict 120-day filing window or cannot produce admissible evidence such as a verdict form or trial recording, permanently losing the right to challenge the conviction despite potential constitutional grounds.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
The text would legally permit recapture petitions and restricted evidence rules. Misapplication of these provisions could result in unlawful detention or improper denial of post-conviction relief.
Sources · Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The measure prioritizes administrative finality and public safety through stricter recapture procedures and narrower post-conviction relief windows, at the cost of reduced procedural flexibility for defendants challenging convictions or facing elevated felony thresholds for property crimes. Upsides include clearer sentencing guidelines, inflation-adjusted property crime thresholds, and a structured recapture process. Downsides include tight filing deadlines, restricted evidence rules, and potential for prolonged detention pending recapture hearings.
Potential effect if enacted: Clearer sentencing guidelines and inflation-adjusted property crime thresholds reduce arbitrary felony classifications.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Structured recapture process would provide predictable timelines and due process protections for individuals released due to calculation errors.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Tight filing deadlines and restricted evidence rules may bar legitimate post-conviction relief claims.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Potential for prolonged detention pending recapture hearings if courts or prosecutors misapply clear-and-convincing evidence standards.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -10 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text and official legislative summaries. No external speculation or unverified claims are included. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The amendment would authorize the Oregon Department of Corrections to grant up to 120 days of transitional leave to individuals released between July 10, 2025, and the bill’s effective date due to a material error in sentence computation or legal interpretation regarding presentence credits, provided they meet specific compliance and eligibility requirements. It does not alter their underlying sentence or release status but would provide a supervised reintegration period instead of immediate recapture or extended standard supervision.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to balance public safety with structured community reintegration for individuals caught in a sentencing computation dispute, using transitional leave as an intermediate step between immediate recapture and unrestricted release.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Eligible individuals may receive up to 120 days of supervised transitional leave rather than immediate recapture or extended standard post-prison supervision, contingent on compliance and program eligibility.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
DOC would have to verify eligibility criteria, recompute sentences, confirm original court authorization for the leave program, and administer the 120-day transitional leave period.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Indirectly affected by the administrative shift in how erroneously released individuals are managed; leave conditions may involve supervision reporting or victim notification depending on existing ORS 421.168 frameworks.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Eligible individuals gain a temporary, supervised reentry window that may reduce immediate custodial disruption while maintaining oversight.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: DOC faces administrative obligations to recompute sentences, verify post-prison supervision compliance, and confirm original judicial authorization for the leave program.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
State and local governments would experience minimal fiscal impact, as confirmed by multiple Legislative Revenue Office and Legislative Fiscal Office analyses of the measure.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Eligible individual with perfect compliance history
Potential effect if enacted: A person released due to a computational error who has fully complied with supervision conditions receives the full 120 days of transitional leave, successfully completes the program, and avoids immediate recapture, allowing stable housing, employment, and family reintegration before any potential return to custody.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Eligible individual with underlying risk factors
Potential effect if enacted: DOC grants leave to a person who technically meets the statutory criteria but has a history of noncompliance or high-risk behavior; the individual commits a new offense during the 120-day period, resulting in public safety harm and potential liability for the department’s discretionary grant.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
The statutory conditions act as formal checks, but misapplication of 'compliance' or failure to confirm original court authorization could lead to unlawful de facto releases outside the intended supervised framework.
Sources · Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
The measure trades immediate custodial certainty for a structured, time-limited supervised reentry period, which may improve reintegration outcomes but would require DOC oversight and carries public safety risk if eligibility is misapplied.
Would provide a supervised bridge that may reduce recidivism by allowing gradual community reintegration for individuals caught in computational disputes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Would reduce administrative burden of immediate recapture proceedings for individuals who have maintained supervision compliance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Would extend community presence for individuals who ultimately owe additional incarceration time, potentially delaying accountability.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Relies on DOC’s discretionary verification of eligibility and compliance, creating variability in who receives the benefit.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. The amendment text explicitly states its operative mechanism, eligibility criteria, and effective date. Official fiscal and revenue analyses confirm minimal impact. Background context is well-documented in staff summaries, though the specific rationale for the amendment’s drafting remains unstated. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The amendment would reclassify certain driving-while-suspended offenses, increase felony sentencing for fleeing police, create a strict 120-day window and narrow evidentiary limits for post-conviction relief based on nonunanimous jury verdicts, establish a court-petition process for the Department of Corrections to recapture individuals released due to sentence calculation errors (retroactive to July 2025), clarify trial court authority to fix ambiguous judgments, restrict presentence credit application, and raise property crime value thresholds. Potential effects could include potential re-incarceration of individuals released in good faith, reduced misdemeanor exposure for some driving violations, higher bars for theft/mischief charges, and streamlined but constrained post-conviction relief procedures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure appears designed to address administrative and judicial fallout from recent Oregon Supreme Court rulings on sentence computation and jury unanimity, while updating outdated property crime thresholds. This is inferred from the text's creation of a specific recapture mechanism for DOC errors retroactive to July 2025, establishment of a narrow PCR window for nonunanimous verdicts, and inflation-adjusted theft/mischief thresholds.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; IS_Impact HB 4041 A
Potential effect if enacted: Some face reduced misdemeanor exposure for mischief/reckless driving suspensions; others face mandatory minimum fines if tied to DUII.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Faces enhanced felony sentencing guidelines based on priors and injury severity.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Subject to potential recapture via court petition if released between July 10, 2025, and effective date.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Would have to file PCR petitions within 120 days; burden of proof shifts to them with strictly limited admissible evidence.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Gains authority to correct ambiguous judgment terms; faces new notification requirements for release date changes and strict limits on applying presentence credit without express court orders.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
DOC would have to petition courts within specific timelines to recapture individuals; courts would have to hold hearings within five days and appoint counsel if eligible. Prosecutors and defendants face a strict 120-day PCR deadline with heavy evidentiary burdens. The measure carries minimal fiscal impact per official revenue and fiscal statements. Eligibility for reduced misdemeanor status would depend on the underlying suspension reason. Enforcement risk increases as recapture would allow detention pending hearing if public safety necessity is shown, while PCR relief is narrowly constrained by statutory evidence limits.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment; Revenue Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Individuals convicted of driving while suspended/revoked
Potential effect if enacted: A person released due to a clerical error in presentence credit calculation avoids recapture because they have fewer than 30 days remaining on their original sentence, preserving their freedom while allowing DOC to correct records prospectively.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Defendants convicted by nonunanimous juries
An individual convicted by an 11-1 jury verdict misses the 120-day PCR filing window or would lack a transcript/recording proving nonunanimity, resulting in no relief despite a constitutional violation under state law, effectively finalizing a conviction that Oregon courts previously deemed reversible.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
The text would legally permit DOC to petition for recapture and detention pending hearing based on 'clear and convincing evidence' of public safety necessity. A potentially unlawful outcome could arise if DOC misclassifies a lawful release as a 'material error' to circumvent due process, or if courts routinely grant detention motions without rigorous scrutiny, effectively using the recapture statute as a tool for punitive re-incarceration rather than correcting computational mistakes. The PCR evidentiary limits legally restrict proof to verdict forms, polls, recordings, or transcripts; weak enforcement of this limit could allow speculative claims, while strict enforcement could unlawfully bar meritorious claims where evidence was lost through no fault of the parties.
Sources · Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The measure balances administrative correction and updated sentencing standards against individual liberty by enabling targeted recapture and narrowing post-conviction relief pathways. Upsides include correcting DOC calculation errors, updating outdated property crime thresholds to reflect inflation, and clarifying fleeing/eluding sentencing. Downsides include risking re-incarceration of individuals released in good faith, imposing a strict deadline with heavy evidentiary burdens for PCR claims, and reducing misdemeanor exposure for certain driving violations that may undermine public safety deterrence.
Potential effect if enacted: Correcting DOC calculation errors
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Updating outdated property crime thresholds to reflect inflation
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Clarifying fleeing/eluding sentencing
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Risking re-incarceration of individuals released in good faith
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Imposing a strict deadline with heavy evidentiary burdens for PCR claims
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Reducing misdemeanor exposure for certain driving violations that may undermine public safety deterrence
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text and official legislative revenue/fiscal statements. No prior published bill-text version was provided for comparison. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
If adopted, the amendment would impose a mandatory 120-hour public defense service requirement on private attorneys who practiced in Oregon courts in 2026, direct the Oregon Public Defense Commission to provide qualifying training, and sunset the mandate on January 2, 2030, creating a temporary capacity expansion for indigent defense that could alter private practice workflows and bar compliance tracking.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure likely aims to rapidly expand indigent defense capacity by mobilizing underutilized private attorneys during a period of known public defense strain, using a time-limited mandate and standardized training to ensure service quality.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Would have to track and complete 120 hours of public defense service by December 31, 2029, or face potential bar compliance consequences, potentially requiring reallocation of practice time.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Bears administrative and instructional responsibility to develop, fund, and deliver training that qualifies toward the requirement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: may experience increased availability of private counsel for indigent cases and more standardized training for appointed attorneys, potentially improving representation quality.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Could see shifts in docket management, attorney availability for non-indigent matters, and potential changes in how indigent representation is sourced and monitored.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Private attorneys would have to allocate time to qualify cases or pro bono work within a three-year window; OPDC would have to design and administer training programs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Direct fiscal impact is assessed as minimal by legislative revenue and fiscal offices, but indirect costs would fall on attorneys (lost billable hours) and the state (training administration).
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Revenue Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement A
May lower barriers to indigent representation by expanding the eligible attorney pool; could reduce private counsel availability for civil or non-indigent criminal matters if compliance drives scheduling changes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Likely enforced through Oregon State Bar membership renewal or continuing legal education tracking, creating compliance monitoring burdens and potential disputes over what qualifies as qualifying service.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Indigent defendants and public defense system
Potential effect if enacted: A coordinated surge of experienced private attorneys completes the requirement using standardized OPDC training, significantly reducing public defender caseloads and improving case outcomes for indigent defendants across multiple counties during the mandate period.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Private practice clients and court dockets
Private attorneys systematically drop non-indigent civil or criminal clients to meet the hour quota, creating a secondary bottleneck in court dockets, while inadequate oversight would lead to unqualified attorneys handling complex indigent cases without proper supervision, increasing error rates and appeals.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The statutory language would create a clear obligation but leaves enforcement mechanics, audit procedures, and service qualification standards to administrative rulemaking, creating gaps where misclassification of qualifying work or unmonitored duty expansion could occur.
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The measure trades mandatory private bar time commitments for expanded indigent defense capacity, creating a structured but temporary service obligation that may strain private practice flexibility while potentially improving access to justice for low-income defendants.
Potential effect if enacted: Rapid mobilization of private legal expertise into indigent defense without requiring permanent structural budget increases.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Standardized OPDC training could raise baseline competency and consistency for attorneys newly handling public defense work.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Mandatory hour quotas may force private attorneys to deprioritize non-indigent civil or criminal matters, reducing overall legal service availability.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Administrative tracking and enforcement burdens could fall disproportionately on smaller firms or solo practitioners with limited compliance infrastructure.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded in the explicit statutory text of the proposed amendment and official legislative revenue/fiscal statements. Inferences are bounded to the text's definitions, deadlines, and administrative directives. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The amendment reclassifies certain driving-while-suspended offenses from misdemeanors to violations, increases felony sentencing tiers for vehicle eluding, would impose a strict 120-day filing window and limited evidence standards for post-conviction relief based on nonunanimous jury verdicts, would establish court petition procedures for the Department of Corrections to return individuals released due to sentence calculation errors, would clarify trial court authority to correct ambiguous judgments, would restrict presentence incarceration credit calculations, and would raise property crime value thresholds. If adopted, it would shift some driving offenses to lower-level violations, increase penalties for repeat or injurious eluding, accelerate resolution of nonunanimous verdict claims, provide a legal pathway to recapture individuals released due to DOC calculation errors, and reduce felony prosecutions for lower-value theft and mischief.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure appears designed to address inflation-adjusted property crime thresholds since 2009 and to streamline the processing of post-conviction claims and DOC recapture petitions by imposing strict deadlines, evidence limits, and procedural filters.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Fewer would face misdemeanor or felony charges for driving while suspended if the suspension stemmed from criminal mischief or reckless driving; those offenses would be reclassified as violations, reducing potential jail time and collateral consequences.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Face increased presumptive sentences and stricter Criminal Justice Commission crime categories if they have prior eluding convictions or cause physical or serious physical injury.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Would have to file petitions within 120 days of the measure's effective date and bear the burden of proving nonunanimity using only specific documentary evidence, limiting access to relief for those with older or poorly documented cases.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Subject to court petitions for return to custody, probable cause hearings, potential pre-hearing detention based on public safety findings, and limited ability to challenge the original sentence.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: New obligations to appoint counsel for ambiguous judgment corrections, restrict presentence credit calculations, issue recomputation notices, and conduct expedited recapture hearings.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
DOC would have to implement new notice protocols for credit recomputations and adhere to strict limits on applying presentence incarceration credit. Courts would have to schedule prompt hearings for recapture petitions and ambiguous judgment corrections, appoint counsel when eligible, and restrict modifications to the original sentencing record.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Official fiscal and revenue analyses indicate minimal impact on state or local expenditures. Eligibility for post-conviction relief narrows due to the 120-day window and evidence restrictions. Reduced felony thresholds for theft may shift prosecution strategies toward misdemeanor or violation charges.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Potential effect if enacted: Recapture provisions create a mechanism to reverse prior releases, increasing detention risk during pending hearings. Stricter deadlines and evidence limits may reduce access to post-conviction relief. Prosecutors gain clearer charging guidelines for property crimes but face adjusted thresholds that may affect case prioritization.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Defendants with suspended or revoked licenses
Potential effect if enacted: A person wrongfully released due to a clerical error is promptly returned to custody after a swift probable cause hearing, preventing potential harm if they reoffend, while preserving due process through appointed counsel and clear-and-convincing detention standards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Persons seeking post-conviction relief for nonunanimous jury verdicts
Potential effect if enacted: An individual convicted decades ago under the now-invalid nonunanimous jury rule misses the 120-day filing window or cannot meet the strict evidence burden due to lost records, resulting in a permanent bar to relief despite constitutional concerns, while DOC's recapture petitions lead to prolonged pre-hearing detention for individuals who had already reintegrated into society.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: inference
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The measure balances administrative efficiency and public safety through stricter deadlines, recapture procedures, and adjusted thresholds against reduced access to post-conviction relief and potential liberty restrictions for individuals released due to prior calculation errors.
Potential effect if enacted: Streamlines complex post-conviction claims and DOC recapture proceedings
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Potential effect if enacted: Addresses inflation in property crime thresholds since 2009
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Would provide a clear legal pathway for correcting DOC release errors while maintaining due process safeguards
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Would create hard filing deadlines that may bar meritorious claims
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Increases detention risk during recapture proceedings
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Shifts some driving offenses to lower-level violations that may reduce deterrence or tracking
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded in the supplied proposed amendment text and official staff/fiscal summaries. No enacted status or external speculation is asserted. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
47 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
AI-assessed adopted replacement
Most introduced operative provisions are struck and new criminal sentencing and correctional provisions take their place. Retention of the property-value thresholds does not preserve substantially all introduced policy.
AI assessment dated 2026-09-29. This classification is separate from enactment and legal effect.
Evidence snapshot: 2026-09-29. Later legislative records are not automatically reassessed.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_a · 2026-09-29
AI-assessed adopted replacement
Most introduced operative provisions are struck and new criminal sentencing and correctional provisions take their place. Retention of the property-value thresholds does not preserve substantially all introduced policy.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
“SECTION 1. The Department of Justice, in consultation with the Department of Cor- 9 rections, shall study whether legislative changes are needed to modify how credit for time 10 served is applied to sentences. The Department of Justice shall submit a report i”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. ORS 811.182 is amended to read: 6 811.182. (1) A person commits the offense of criminal driving while suspended or revoked if the 7 person violates ORS 811.175 and the suspension or revocation is one described in this section, or if 8 the hardshi”
A-Engrossed
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_b · 2026-09-29
AI-assessed adopted replacement
Adopted -5 amendment replaces the operative center of this public-safety omnibus; limited retained property-crime thresholds do not preserve the original package.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
“SECTION 1. The Department of Justice, in consultation with the Department of Cor- 9 rections, shall study whether legislative changes are needed to modify how credit for time 10 served is applied to sentences. The Department of Justice shall submit a report in the man- 11 ner provided by ”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. ORS 811.182 is amended to read: 6 811.182. (1) A person commits the offense of criminal driving while suspended or revoked if the 7 person violates ORS 811.175 and the suspension or revocation is one described in this section, or if 8 the hardship permit violated is based upo”
A-Engrossed
“Gut and stuff” research tracks substantial replacements of a bill’s substantive text. Policy change is assessed separately: a rewrite can retain the same purpose. A proposed amendment is counted as adopted only when the official evidence supports adoption.
Two subscription subagents independently examine the same official evidence without seeing each other’s answers. An additional subagent can adjudicate disagreements against the sources. Unsupported conclusions, missing evidence, and unresolved disagreements remain uncertain. Agreement is not a guarantee of accuracy.
Session totals count each HB or SB once, including bills that did not become law. Resolutions and memorials are excluded. Counts describe the research inventory, independent of your search, interests, following, and status filters. Missing or unassessed bills are not negative findings.
The replacement watch is a rule, not an AI assessment: a bill whose introduced text is a short study bill (a study word, at most three sections, under 400 words) or a blank form (a run of blanks, 300 words or fewer) is listed once a proposed amendment is posted for it. In the 2021 to 2026 training sessions, 271 of 374 such bills were later replaced; the rate is historical and says nothing about a particular bill’s intent.
Assessments are published research snapshots. Opening this page reads saved research and does not run an AI review. Refreshes require another evidence export, independent assessment, and validated import; reports do not continuously refresh. Each bill’s evidence and reviewer provenance are available on its detail page.
Follow the official text for HB 4041 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available. Dotted links flag likely related proposals based on their text.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals. Dotted teal links are text-based early signals, not official amendment relationships.
Selected document summary
Substantial replacement
What the document says to change
Delete lines 5 through 19 and delete pages 2 through 7 and insert:
Inferred policy relationships
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -5
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 10.095, ORS 131.505, ORS 137.124, ORS 137.172, ORS 137.320, Tax credit, Tax deduction, Effective date.
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -10
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 10.095, ORS 131.505, ORS 137.124, ORS 137.172, ORS 137.320, Tax credit, Tax deduction, Effective date.
This is a text-based early signal, not an official statement that one amendment changes the other.
Official records (1)
Oregon records no individual sponsors.
Presession filing record
Introduced and printed pursuant to House Rule 12.00. Presession filed.
LC 92 draft
Date printed on LC draft: January 12, 2026
LC 92 became HB 4041
Mapping document posted: January 13, 2026 at 1:18 AM PST
LC0092_DRAFT_2026_Regular_Session
House Interim Committee on Judiciary introduction work session
Committee meeting: January 13, 2026 at 2:30 PM PST
HR F
Committee introduction motion
Committee meeting: January 13, 2026 at 2:30 PM PST
A motion was made to adopt the listed legislative concepts as committee bills.
Official vote: ANDERSEN, CHAICHI, LEWIS, MANNIX, TRÂN, CHOTZEN,
Committee introduction allows consideration; it does not imply every member supported the introduced or final text.
The text changed substantially while keeping measure number HB 4041.
House carrier
Representative Jason Kropf
Third Reading Of House Bills · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Third Reading Of House Measures · Version B
House carrier
Representative Jason Kropf
Possible Consideration Of Senate Amendments · Version B
A carrier presents the measure or report but is not necessarily its sponsor or author.
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
47 events
Full timeline
47 entries shown.
Chapter 14, (2026 Laws): Effective date March 5, 2026.
Governor signed.
President signed.
Speaker signed.
House concurred in Senate amendments and repassed bill.
Ayes, 51; Nays, 4--Andersen, Chaichi, Chotzen, Isadore; Excused, 3--Hartman, Levy B, Valderrama; Excused for Business of the House, 2--Levy E, Nguyen D.
Vote explanation(s) filed by Pham.
Third reading. Carried by Prozanski. Passed.
Ayes, 28; Nays, 1--Pham; Excused, 1--Linthicum.
Second reading.
Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments to the A-Eng. bill. (Printed B-Eng.)
Staff Measure Summary · Version B
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 5 · Room HR C · Reduces penalties for driving while suspended if the suspension is due to a conviction for criminal mischief resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle or reckless driving.
IS_Impact HB 4041 A12
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -A12 adopted
IS_Impact HB 4041 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 5 · Room HR C · Reduces penalties for driving while suspended if the suspension is due to a conviction for criminal mischief resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle or reckless driving.
IS_Impact HB 4041 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Referred to Judiciary.
First reading. Referred to President's desk.
Vote explanation(s) filed by Chotzen.
Rules suspended. Third reading. Carried by Kropf. Passed.
Ayes, 46; Nays, 9--Andersen, Chaichi, Chotzen, Gamba, Isadore, Munoz, Nelson, Ruiz, Sanchez; Excused, 4--Hartman, Levy B, Scharf, Valderrama; Excused for Business of the House, 1--Boshart Davis.
Second reading.
House Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be printed A-Engrossed.
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 2 · Room HR B · Directs the Department of Justice to study whether legislative changes are needed concerning credit for time served and post-conviction relief petitions based on nonunanimous jury verdicts.
Amendment -10 combined
Amendment -8 adopted
IS_Impact HB 4041 5
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -5 adopted
Amendment -4 proposed
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 3 · Room HR B · Directs the Department of Justice to study whether legislative changes are needed concerning credit for time served and post-conviction relief petitions based on nonunanimous jury verdicts.
Amendment -1 proposed
Referred to Judiciary.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
e decision. Theft and Criminal Mischief Values In 2009, the legislature enacted House Bill 2323, which increased the value thresholds for various property crimes, including th
e decision. Theft and Criminal Mischief Values In 2009, the legislature enacted House Bill 2323, which increased the value thresholds for various property crimes, including th
Source title: Reduces penalties for driving while suspended if the suspension is due to a conviction for criminal mischief resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle or reckless driving.This source title may describe an earlier version. Read the current brief and version history above.
“Enrolled bill text posted”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.