An Oregon Man Was Wrongly Imprisoned for Almost a Year Because of an Error in a DMV Database
The Oregon DMV knew about the problem, but it "wasn't at a high enough level to understand the urgency" of the need to fix it.

Nicholas Chappelle spent almost a year in an Oregon prison after he was wrongfully convicted of driving with a suspended license. The reason for his incarceration? A shoddy DMV database. And the worst part is he's not alone.
While it's unclear just how many Oregonians have been wrongfully arrested or convicted due to errors in the database, at least 3,000 licenses have been mislabeled as indefinitely suspended. At least five wrongful arrests or convictions have been identified.
According to The Oregonian, the issue stems from an error-prone practice in the database of suspended licenses at the state's department of Driver & Motor Vehicles Services. In Oregon, license suspensions don't take effect until a person has completed their prison or jail sentence. In the meantime, their licenses are listed as essentially permanently suspended, recorded in the database as suspended until "12/31/9999" or "00/00/0000." According to The Oregonian, around 3000 licenses are currently being affected.
Once a suspended license holder is released from prison or jail, the state requires them to notify the DMV that they have been released in order to start counting time toward their actual suspension. However, according to The Oregonian, prison and jail officials haven't even been giving out the necessary forms to released inmates because they don't know who is facing license suspensions. When these former inmates get pulled over, they are likely to be arrested for driving with a suspended license, even if the actual tenure of their suspension is over.
What results is a convoluted system, where thousands of Oregonians face a false arrest or conviction due to a simple yet pervasive procedural error. For individuals like Chappelle, this error can be life-altering.
Chappelle was imprisoned for 11 months after he pleaded guilty to driving with a suspended license. He was innocent, but he pleaded guilty to the felony anyway. The Oregonian reports that during his imprisonment in a medium-security facility far from home, Chappelle lost his job as a union ironworker and missed the birth of his son. The wrongful conviction wasn't noticed until prosecutors in the Multnomah County District Attorney's Justice Integrity Unit found his case—and at least five other wrongful arrests and convictions.
The Oregonian reports, "The DMV has no idea how many people have been charged and prosecuted because of the erroneous records, but DMV administrator Amy Joyce acknowledges the problem has gone unaddressed for years." According to one DMV administrator, the DMV did become aware of the issue at some unspecified point in the past, but it "wasn't at a high enough level to understand the urgency" to try to fix the issue.
The problem is maddening, and the status quo of requiring former inmates to correct the DMV's own errors is particularly cruel. "The state inhales tax dollars to oversee an accurate database," wrote TechDirt's Tim Cushing. "Those being taxed should not be expected to correct the state's errors. The state is being paid to do this job."
Now, DMV officials say they're working to fix the issue. However, the process appears to be moving slowly, requiring the collaboration of both the DMV and the Oregon Department of Corrections. "We're still hashing out with DOC how this is going to work exactly," the DMV administrator told The Oregonian.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
>>He was innocent, but he pleaded guilty to the felony anyway.
bro! insufficient counsel.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link----------------------------------------------------->>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
Yeah man!
"He was innocent, but he pleaded guilty to the felony anyway."
NEVER plead guilty unless it is TOTES clear that you ARE actually guilty! Fuck the bastards, demand a jury trial, and gum up these EVIL works!!! Do NOT be SHEEP, all ye sheeple out there!!! Fight BACK against the wolves, in any sensible (non-violent) way that you can!
Plead guilty to something you didn’t do and get locked up for a year, or face trial on dozens of charges that if convicted amount to life in prison. Keeping in mind that the judges, prosecutors, cops, and public pretenders are all on the same team, with the final decision being made by people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty. What would you do?
"Plead guilty to something you didn’t do and get locked up for a year, or face trial on dozens of charges"
Yep. Don't know the specifics here, but in general, particularly if you are poor, you better take the plea bargain regardless of guilt.
The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, has ruled that a "speedy trial" is anything under a year -- with the prosecution able to pursue numerous exceptions to extend that.
And given the ill-thought-out bloated criminal code, you are likely guilty of the "other charges" under the letter of the law. So the jury would have to ignore the judge's instructions to find you not guilty when they load up on you if you don't take the deal.
Highly recommend: "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"
by Harvey A. Silverglate
You mean a far left state run by filthy hippies shits on civil liberties? No way!
That doesn't sound like the DMV's own error so much as the released prisoners being given improper / insufficient information by jail / prison officials at the time of their release. Am I missing something?
Is the DMV improperly suspending people's license when it wasn't part of their sentence?
“Once a suspended license holder is released from prison or jail, the state requires them to notify the DMV that they have been released in order to start counting time toward their actual suspension. However, according to The Oregonian, prison and jail officials haven’t even been giving out the necessary forms to released inmates because they don’t know who is facing license suspensions. When these former inmates get pulled over, they are likely to be arrested for driving with a suspended license, even if the actual tenure of their suspension is over.”
Super important, totes not "too local" story.
Way to push that leftist agitprop, Reason.
It's not clear the guy is innocent. Was he legally obliged to send in paperwork to start his suspension running?
It is clear, and how stupid are you? No, he was not so obliged.
Notwithstanding other reasons for taking a plea bargain regardless of guilt, I don’t think there was recognition of the error at the time. So the error would have been presented as legitimate evidence at trial. How much “due diligence” would defense counsel be required to pursue here? The “facts” say his license is suspended.
Meanwhile, A vehicle in D.C. that had over 40 traffic violations and over $12,000 in fines was involved in a fatal accident, without the driver being cited.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/03/16/rock-creek-parkway-crash-suv-tickets/
I am now making $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making cash online by
Follow instruction on website Here…………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
If I read the story correctly, the man must have had his license suspended once, went to prison, was released, but his license wasn't automatically reinstated. It's odd that the first license suspension wasn't mentioned explicitly in the article, or the reason. If he went to prison for it, it must have been rather serious.
Then, after his release, he started driving again and was stopped again. The DMV reported that his license was still suspended (because it was never reinstated after he was released from prison for the first time), and he was imprisoned again. In addition, Chappelle never questioned the charge, having relied on his defense lawyer, the prosecutor and state records. He even pleaded guilty to the felony.
Yeah, there was a clerical error at the DMV. But perhaps it's not entirely unreasonable for people who went to prison on a suspended license once to check with the DMV after their release. I mean, don't they have to get a new physical license anyway?
You are evidently incapable of reading a simple story and understanding it. This is called functional illiteracy. Join an adult literacy program.
Well, Davedave, why don't YOU explain the sequence of events that led to his imprisonment then.
It seems pretty clear that if "the issue stems from an error-prone practice in the database of suspended licenses at the state's department of Driver & Motor Vehicles Services", then the person who was arrested due to this issue must have been arrested twice: once for an initial suspension, and once after the issue has arisen.
Your turn: what do you think happened?
No, I found it similarly skimpy on details that might've clarified it.
For those not up to trying out all the links in the article:
“A St. Helens police officer stopped Chappelle on Jan. 30 last year for driving with expired registration tags near Skinny’s Gas Station on South Columbia River Highway…The officer cited Chappelle for having no registration tags, as well as driving with a suspended license based on DMV records that she checked during the stop on the computer in her police car.
Chappelle waived his right to a grand jury hearing and pleaded guilty the next month….
Chappelle had been convicted in July 2016 of third-degree assault with a car and sentenced to probation. His license was ordered suspended for five years, to take effect Aug. 10, 2016.
By the time the officer pulled over Chappelle last year, his suspension had expired. But Chappelle didn’t realize it and no one else did either.”
Everybody is wrong. NOYB had it wrong. He hadn't gone to prison, and the suspension ended automatically. (He may have been driving with an expired license, but that is very different from driving with a suspended license.) The DMV was wrong. The prosecutors were wrong. Chappelle's attorney was wrong. And even Chappelle himself didn't realize he was allowed to drive, so he had the mens rea without the crime.
OK, I'm glad you found the first offense:
That was what I was looking for.
But the article then is particularly confusing because it implies that he was imprisoned for his 2016 offense, since the article says However, according to The Oregonian, prison and jail officials haven't even been giving out the necessary forms to released inmates because they don't know who is facing license suspensions.
If he only got probation, why would "prison and jail officials" be giving him forms upon his release?
Yes, the article is poorly written.
A real issue here is arresting people for suspended licenses.
As opposed to doing what exactly with them?
Isn’t our legal system supposed to be able to prove a person charged is the same one on the warrant? Sounds like some DAs need a bit of prison time to remind them of that fact.
You are all aware that it is common practice to coerce poor people into pleading guilty by over-charging them with 100 years of BS and then offering a plea deal to get out in 5 yrs, right ? I mean, this isn't new. So long as they can get the W , they don't care how wrong it is.
The article says this is for FELONY Driving on a Suspended License. I am a California lawyer, NOT licensed in Oregon. This phrase "felony driving on suspended" caught my eye as it is my understanding that this is normally a misdemeanor in almost every state. A quick search says that if this was actually a felony, it means that his license was suspended because he had a prior felony conviction involving causing a death through use of his vehicle. Otherwise, this would have been a misdemeanor. Note: I don't take much note of them saying he was in prison... Many journalists and conflate the concept of local jails with state prison and at least some states conflate the two concepts as well (Here in California, jails are for pretrial kidnapping by the State and also for misdemeanor convictions and for SOME felonies; Prisons are ONLY for felonies and even then not all felonies result in prison rather than county jail. But calling this a felony driving on a suspended license? Yeah, that caught my eye and the only way THAT appears possible is if this guy is a killer. I'm not saying he didn't do his time and that the system didn't screw up here. But in terms of having a person to hold up as the public example of the State screwing someone over, Reason could've found a more sympathetic example than a convicted felony killer.
And they wonder why we resist a registry of gun owners.
He pled guilty on the advice of an attorney. The attorney committed malpractice i.e. he only had ONE thing to do to prepare his defense - verify the start and end dates of the charges in the indictment, i.e. the license suspension. An Attorney's role is to make sure the State has done it's job correctly and this was a miserable failure by a lazy POS that cost his client 11 months of his life.
What caught my distracted eye was Orange Man Wrongly Imprisoned... (already?) Then reading the article, with a name like Chappelle no photos are needed to get that this is not your typical case of driving while orange.