 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Evans v. State6/21/1996
is, of course, free to take up the matter again with the legislature.
Conclusion
{16} We agree with the district court's interpretation of the Implied Consent Act to require license revocation hearings to be held in person. We do not agree, however, with the action of the district court reinstating Defendant's driving privileges. The Department should be given an opportunity to conduct a proper hearing pursuant to the Implied Consent Act as clarified in this opinion. Therefore, we reverse and remand for that purpose.
{17} IT IS SO ORDERED.
RICHARD C. BOSSON, Judge
WE CONCUR:
THOMAS A. DONNELLY, Judge
HARRIS L HARTZ, Judge
1 The Department has not issued a formal regulation either authorizing telephonic hearings or establishing procedures for them. Although it might have been advisable to precede the use of telephonic hearings with a duly promulgated administrative regulation, that omission is not significant to our holding in this opinion.
|