 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davidson v. State6/10/1999
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division II
Plank and Jones, JJ., concur
Plaintiff, William George Davidson, appeals the trial court judgment affirming the order of defendant, Colorado Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division (Department), suspending his driver's license. We affirm.
In December 1996, plaintiff, a Colorado resident, was issued a citation for speeding in the state of Oklahoma. When plaintiff failed to pay the required fine, Oklahoma's department of public safety sent the Department a "Request for Suspension," asking the Department to suspend plaintiff's Colorado driver's license in accordance with the provisions of the Nonresident Violator Compact (Compact). Both Colorado and Oklahoma are parties to the Compact. See §24-60-2101, et seq., C.R.S. 1998; Okla. Stat. tit. 47, §790 (1991).
The Department notified plaintiff that it had received the suspension request from Oklahoma. That notice identified the violation number, provided plaintiff with an Oklahoma telephone number which he could call to request a receipt showing that the ticket had been paid, and informed plaintiff that his license would be suspended if the Department did not receive verification within one month that the ticket had been paid. The notice also advised plaintiff that he could request a hearing on the matter.
Plaintiff requested and received a hearing before the Department. At that hearing, plaintiff offered into evidence a "motion to dismiss" (actually, a document titled "Non-Statutory Abatement," not bearing any court name or case number) which he claimed to have filed in Oklahoma to obtain dismissal of the traffic citation. He indicated that Oklahoma had neither responded nor given him notice that the motion was insufficient.
Although the hearing officer admitted plaintiff's document for the record, he informed plaintiff that, upon receiving the suspension request from Oklahoma, the Department was obligated to go forward with the suspension and that any issues regarding the propriety of the underlying traffic offense had to be litigated in Oklahoma. The hearing officer then issued an order of suspension.
Plaintiff sought review of the order in the district court, arguing that he was not afforded due process at the suspension hearing. After holding a hearing and reviewing briefs submitted by both parties, the trial court concluded that there had been no violation of plaintiff's due process rights. It therefore affirmed the Department's order suspending plaintiff's driver's license.
I.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in concluding that his due process rights had not been violated. We disagree.
Due process protections apply to an administrative proceeding to suspend or revoke a driver's license. Ryan v. Charnes, 738 P.2d 1175 (Colo. 1987). Due process requires, at a minimum, that there be notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Patterson v. Cronin, 650 P.2d 531 (Colo. 1982).
As to the notice and hearing required prior to suspension of a driver's license under the Compact, §24-60-2101 Article IV(a), C.R.S. 1998, provides:
"Upon receipt of a report of a failure to comply from the licensing authority of the issuing jurisdiction, the licensing authority of the home jurisdiction shall notify the motorist and initiate a suspension action, in accordance with the home jurisdiction's procedures, to suspend the motorist's driver's license until satisfactory evidence of compliance with the terms of the traffic citation has been furnished to the home jurisdiction licensing authority. Due process safeguards will
Page 1 2 3 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|