 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. State2/15/2005
ed for the prescribed periods and that "neither the Department nor any court shall grant a license or permit to drive a motor vehicle based upon hardship or otherwise for the duration of such period." § 6-205.1(c). We cannot say that the statutory enactment of that policy is arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious considering the gravity of the perils inherent in the use of a public way by a mentally impaired licensee. Protection of the public from the potentially harmful consequences of driving under the influence of intoxicants is a legitimate and important state interest. Requiring an unmodifiable revocation after a second offense is not an unreasonable or arbitrary means of promoting such protection. (Emphasis added.)
Williams v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Department of Public Safety, 1990 OK CIV APP 27, 13, 16, 791 P.2d 120, 123-4.
To summarize, Driver has no constitutionally protected right to a driver's license. It is a conditional privilege subject to suspension. Further, the Legislature's choice to revoke a license - and the duration of that revocation - as a means to impress upon a licensee the necessity to obey traffic laws is a rational and reasonable remedy to promote the public policy of highway safety, and therefore constitutional. For these reasons, we hold a district court is compelled to follow the legislative mandate reflected in the statutes in effect at the time modification is sought.
The trial court's order which declared 47 O.S. Supp. 2003, § 6-205.1(A)(3), to be unconstitutional and which modified Driver's license is reversed.
REVERSED.
TAYLOR, P.J., and STUBBLEFIELD, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|