State v. Anderson9/30/2005
puted that the renewal permits of Officers Adkins and Beeba were printed and mailed to the officers prior to September 30, 2002. It is also undisputed that the permits listed an issue date of October 9, 2002, and an expiration date of October 9, 2004. Thus, appellant argues that because of the rule change on September 30, 2002, which limited permit validity to one year, the officers' permits were expired and not valid on April 9, 2004, when the BAC test was administered to the appellant.
{ } This precise issue has recently been decided by this court in City of Columbus v. Childs, Franklin App. No. 04AP-911, 2005-Ohio-3683. In Childs, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of the BAC test given to her by Officer Pickney. Officer Pickney's permit, like those of Officers Adkins and Beeba in the case sub judice, was processed and mailed to him prior to September 30, 2002, and the permit had an issue date of January 30, 2003, and an expiration date of January 30, 2005. The trial court found that the officer's permit was not valid and granted the defendant's motion to suppress the results of the BAC test. In reversing the decision of the trial court, this court stated:
t is clear that the department exercised its statutorily conferred discretion when faced with the question of whether to apply the amended version of Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-09(C) retroactively, and whether to do so even before the department was informed of the effective date of the amendment. This problem presented itself due to the department's practice, pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-09(C), of allowing permit holders to renew their permits up to six months in advance of the expiration date of their current permit. Mr. Ward testified that this practice was necessary to avoid a situation in which so many renewal applications were requested all at once that the department would not be able to process them before all of such permits expired.
The department chose to apply the amendment prospectively, and thus to issue two-year permits to officers who applied for renewal before the effective date of the amendment, even if it turned out - as it did in this case - that the officer's former permit bore an expiration date occurring after the effective date of the amendment. The question before us is whether this was an abuse of the department's discretion. We conclude that it was not.
Id. at -20.
{ } An administrative rule that is issued pursuant to statutory authority has the force of law unless it is unreasonable or conflicts with a statute covering the same subject matter. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Lindley (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 232, 234. "A statute is presumed to be prospective in operation unless a retrospective effect is clearly indicated." State v. Lemaster, 4th Dist. No. 04CA2764, 2004-Ohio-4523, at , citing Bellefontaine City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Benjamin Logan Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (June 16, 1992), 10th Dist. No. 91AP-1277, citing Greene v. United States (1964), 376 U.S. 149, 84 S.Ct. 615. There is no retroactive intent apparent in amended Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-09(C). LeMaster, supra, at ; State v. Brunson, 4th Dist. No. 04CA4, 2004-Ohio-2874, at . Thus, as we found in Childs, it was reasonable for the department to apply the amended version of the rule prospectively.
{ } Additionally, we are required to give considerable deference to an administrative agency's interpretation of its own rules and regulations. Childs, supra, at . Thus, as in Childs, "we find no abuse of discretion in the department's resolution of the apparent conflict between its advance processing of permit renewals and what, in this case, amounted to the 'intervening
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|