 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Becker9/20/1995
514. License suspension statutes "serve the rational remedial purpose of protecting public safety by quickly removing potentially dangerous drivers from the roads." Id. Decisions from other jurisdictions have rejected defendant's interpretation of Kurth and followed our analysis in Strong. See Snow v. Superior Court, 1995 WL 332263 (Az. Ct. App. 1995) (automatic license suspension primarily remedial and does not constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes); State v. Higa, 897 P.2d 928, 933 (Hawai'i 1995) (administrative license revocation process not punitive because purpose is to safeguard public and reduce traffic fatalities caused by those driving under influence); State v. Savard, 659 A.2d 1265, 1268 (Me. 1995) (revocation of driver's license non-punitive in character because overriding purpose of statute to provide public with safe roadways); State v. Hanson, 532 N.W.2d 598, 601-02 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) (implied consent driver's license revocation provision held to be remedial in nature because it serves public safety by removing drunken drivers from highways); State v. Miller, 1995 WL 275770 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (administrative suspension of driver's license does not constitute punishment under double jeopardy clause because remedial in nature).
We see no reason to overrule our holding in Strong.
Affirmed.
Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice
Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice
John A. Dooley, Associate Justice
James L. Morse, Associate Justice
Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice
Page 1 2 Vermont DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|