 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Slay v. State ex rel Department of Public Safety2/24/2000
SLAY v. STATE ex. rel. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION I APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCCLAIN COUNTY
HONORABLE NOAH H. EWING, JUDGE
In an appeal to the district court from the administrative revocation of a driver license, judgment went to Slay [driver or plaintiff]. The Department of Public Safety [defendant] appealed. On review the Court of Civil Appeals upheld the driver-license revocation. Upon certiorari earlier granted,
THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEAL'S OPINION IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART AND THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT IS REVERSED.
The Department of Public Safety [DPS or appellant] seeks review of a district court's judgment that reversed an earlier administrative revocation of Slay's [plaintiff or appellee] driver license. During the review proceedings DPS introduced the "Officer's Affidavit and Notice of Revocation/Disqualification" [Affidavit], took the arresting officer's testimony and then rested its case. Slay demurred to the evidence, asserting that although a faint facsimile of a notary public's seal is apparent upon the Affidavit, it should not be admitted into evidence because the jurisdiction in which it was executed could not be ascertained. The district court agreed and sustained plaintiff's demurrer. The court also found that probable cause did not exist to arrest Slay for driving while intoxicated.
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Slay was arrested on May 4, 1996 for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. When he was asked to submit to a chemical test to assess his sobriety, Slay refused. After a July 24, 1996 administrative hearing appellee's driver license was revoked under the terms of Oklahoma Implied Consent Law. Slay sought de novo review of the revocation in the district court.
During the May 28, 1998 review proceeding the arresting officer testified: (1) that he observed a motor vehicle being driven three feet left of the center line of public street for a distance of approximately 100 feet; (2) that after the vehicle [a truck] was stopped, the officer observed a mug containing a liquid next to the driver which Slay (upon being asked) identified as bourbon; (3) that he [the officer] observed Slay had slurred speech and when asked to step out of his truck, he had trouble maintaining his balance; and (4) that driver had a noticeable smell of alcohol on his breath. The officer also testified that after he had formed an opinion that Slay was intoxicated, he asked him to undergo a chemical test for alcohol consumption. Slay refused and acknowledged his refusal in writing by signing section 2 of the Affidavit. The officer also testified that he advised Slay his refusal to take the test would result in the revocation of his license. The arresting officer further testified that he signed the Affidavit in the presence of a notary public. Lastly, he testified that another officer administered a field sobriety test to assess Slay's degree of intoxication. At the conclusion of the officer's testimony, DPS rested.
Slay objected to admission of the officer's Affidavit, asserting that because the details which are normally embossed by the notary public's seal on the instrument were too faint to read, the identity of the person signing as the notary public was indeterminable. Driver further argued because the law requires the Affidavit be sworn, the seal's absence constituted a fatal jurisdictional flaw. The district court set aside the revocation of Slay's license, finding that DPS had failed to prove by adequate evidence (1
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|