 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Abbey10/20/1999
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Manuel Menendez, Jr., Judge.
The State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety, seeks certiorari review of the circuit court's order granting a petition for writ of certiorari in favor of the respondent, Robert G. Abbey, Jr. Abbey's driver's license was permanently revoked based upon his fifth conviction for driving under the influence (DUI). The Department subsequently denied Abbey's application for a business purposes only license, also known as a hardship license, due to Abbey's admission that he had consumed alcoholic beverages approximately one year prior to his application. The Department based this decision on its Conclusion that section 322.271(4)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1997), which states that an applicant must be "drug-free" for five years prior to applying for a hardship license, requires an applicant to be alcohol-free.
Abbey sought certiorari review of the Department's decision in the circuit court. The circuit court granted Abbey's petition based on its Conclusion that section 322.271 does not require abstinence from alcohol as a prerequisite for issuance of a hardship license. The Department now seeks certiorari review of that decision in this court. We conclude that, given its limited scope of review in a certiorari proceeding, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law when it substituted its interpretation of "drug-free" for a reasonable interpretation provided by the administering agency. We accordingly grant the petition.
After Abbey's fifth DUI conviction, including one motor vehicle crash, the Department permanently revoked his driver's license. In May 1998, Abbey applied for a hardship license. At the hearing on his application, Abbey admitted that he had been sober for the preceding year, but had consumed alcohol prior to that time. The Department's hearing officer denied the application because Abbey did not meet the minimum requirement of being alcohol-free. The hearing officer based this decision on section 322.271(4)(a)(3), which requires a hardship license applicant to establish that he or she "has been drug-free for at least 5 years prior to the hearing. . . ."
Section 322.271 does not specifically require an applicant to be alcohol-free for five years and, in fact, makes no express reference to alcohol. The Department has issued no formal regulation defining "drug-free," but it interprets this statutory term to require an applicant to be alcohol-free, as well as free from other mind-altering chemical substances. The Department's hearing officer accordingly denied Abbey's application for a hardship license based on Abbey's admitted consumption of alcohol.
The circuit court's written opinion quashing the Department's decision effectively declares that the Department cannot allow its hearing officers to give consideration to the consumption of alcohol within the five-year period because abstinence from alcohol is not an express statutory prerequisite for issuance of a driver's license for someone with multiple DUI convictions. Although "drug-free" is not defined in this statute, the Department is the agency charged with the administration of this non-penal statute. See § 322.02, Fla. Stat. (1997). It is well-established that courts should defer to a reasonable interpretation of a statute by the administering agency. See Ameristeel Corp. v. Clark, 691 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1997); Okeechobee Health Care v. Collins, 726 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The Department's interpretation of this statute was reasonable and the circuit court d
Page 1 2 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|