 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Collins v. State ex rel Department of Public Safety8/24/1999
COURT OF APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION II
COLLINS v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
___ P.2d ____
Mandate Issued: November 9, 1999
Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division II
RELEASE FOR PUBLICATION BY ORDER OF COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
Honorable William C. Hetherington, Trial Judge
AFFIRMED
OPINION
This is an appeal from order of the district court sustaining the revocation of a driver's license but modifying the revocation to allow restricted driving privileges. After a review of the record on appeal and applicable law, we affirm.
Petitioner Daniel James Collins filed a petition on January 29, 1998, seeking to have the suspension of his driver's license set aside or modified to allow him to drive to and from work and during the course his employment. He asserted that the revocation by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) was not supported by competent evidence and was improper because: (1) The arresting officer did not have grounds to stop his vehicle; (2) He was improperly arrested; (3) The breath test was improperly conducted; (4) The DPS did not comply with statutory notice provisions regarding suspension/revocation; and, (5) The statutory basis for the arrest is unconstitutional.
After hearing, the trial court found that there was sufficient cause for the stop and arrest of Petitioner for driving under the influence and upheld the introduction into evidence of the breath test result, which showed the Petitioner's alcohol concentration was 0.04. Based on those findings, the trial court sustained the revocation. However, based on agreement of the parties, the revocation was modified to provide restricted driving privileges for Petitioner to operate "any vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device." Petitioner appeals.
On appeal from an order of an administrative body revoking a driver's license, the district court hears the case de novo. Appeal of Dungan, 1984 OK 21, , 681 P.2d 750, 752; Matter of Braddy, 1980 OK 44, , 611 P.2d 235, 237-38; Richards v. State, 1994 OK CIV APP 41, , 872 P.2d 957, 959. At that de novo hearing, DPS has the burden of proving that the licensee had been driving under the influence of alcohol. Appeal of Tucker, 1975 OK CIV APP 40, 538 P.2d 626.
On review of the district court's judgment, an appellate court must first examine the evidentiary elements required to sustain the district court's ruling. Davie v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 1995 OK CIV APP 80, , 898 P.2d 180, 181; Smith v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 1984 OK 16, 680 P.2d 365. This court will not reverse the district court's findings if there is any competent evidence or any reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom that tends to support its findings. Richards, 1994 OK CIV APP 41 at , 872 P.2d at 959; see also Fairres v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 1994 OK CIV APP 186, , 872 P.2d 942, 943.
Petitioner first raises a challenge to the constitutionality of certain statutes under which his driver's license was revoked. He asserts that he was only nineteen-years old at the time he was arrested for driving under the influence and that the age distinction made in the pertinent statutes -- 47 O.S. Supp. 1997 §§ 754 and 756 -- are unconstitutionally discriminatory and caused a denial of his rights of equal protection/due process.
Section 754 deals with seizure of a driver's license and administrative revocation of the license and establishes different standards for revocation, depend
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|