 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kimsey v. Wyoming Department of Transportation1/30/2002
reach a zero alcohol level until 7:00 p.m., approximately seventeen hours after being arrested. As Kimsey was being released, he signed a document stating that he had initially refused to submit to chemical testing. He claims he did not understand that he was signing a refusal to submit to chemical testing form and that he did so only so that he could be released from jail.
[ ] The OAH heard the matter and upheld the implied consent suspension. Kimsey filed a Motion for New Trial and/or Relief from Judgment, which the OAH denied. Kimsey then petitioned the district court for review of the OAH's order, and the district court certified the case to this court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] When the district court certifies an administrative agency's decision directly to this court, we review that agency decision under the same appellate standards applicable to the reviewing court of the first instance. Wesaw v. Quality Maintenance, 2001 WY 17, , 19 P.3d 500, (Wyo. 2001). Our judicial review is limited to those considerations specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2001), which provides:
To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provi sions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:
(ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be:
(A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.
[ ] In reviewing findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine if there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings. Wesaw, . If the agency's findings are supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the agency and must uphold the findings on appeal. Id. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept in support of the conclusions of the agency. It is more than a scintilla of evidence. Id.
[ ] Conclusions of law made by an administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law. Collicott v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Compensation Div., 2001 WY 35, , 20 P.3d 1077, (Wyo. 2001). We do not afford any deference to the agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law. Id.
DISCUSSION
A. Probable Cause
[ ] Kimsey contends that Officer Johnson lacked probable cause to arrest him for driving while under the influence because no one saw Kimsey actually driving his vehicle. WYDOT counters that Officer Johnson had reasonable grounds to believe that Kimsey drove his vehicle while intoxicated, giving him probable cause to arrest him.
[ ] The party who challenges whether the agency's decision was supported by sufficient evidence bears the burden of showing that it was not supported by such evidence. Smith v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 11 P.3d 931, 937 (Wyo. 2000). A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if at the time of the arrest he possesses probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. Jandro v. State, 781 P.2d 512, 517 (Wyo. 1989). Probable cause exists when, given the totality of the circumst
Page 1 2 3 4 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|