Court Strikes Down Licensing Laws!!

[Brent]

Court Strikes Down Licensing Laws

The state Supreme Court issued a sweeping ruling yesterday that could mean
thousands of people whose driver's licenses were suspended won't be
prosecuted.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down two state statutes as
unconstitutional because the laws don't provide for an administrative
hearing or an appeal procedure and thus deny individuals due process
guaranteed by the Constitution.

At issue is the state Department of Licensing's (DOL) lack of a formal
hearing or appeal process for people whose licenses were suspended after
they didn't appear in court or pay traffic tickets.

Yesterday, state and city attorneys were scrambling to understand the full
implications of the ruling. In Seattle, the ruling could have serious
ramifications - and a huge financial impact - because of the city's
controversial impound policies, which the City Council recently voted to
scrap for drivers cited for third-degree license suspensions.

Drivers arrested for third-degree license suspensions typically have their
licenses lifted because they failed to pay tickets for minor traffic
violations, such as speeding. In contrast, drivers arrested for first- and
second-degree license suspensions are those whose licenses were suspended
for being habitual traffic offenders, driving while intoxicated, reckless
driving and other serious traffic offenses.

"It seems to me that any (third-degree) license suspension in the state of
Washington is currently unconstitutional because it doesn't comply with due
process," said Donna Tucker, one of two Bellevue attorneys who argued before
the Supreme Court to have the statutes struck.

Potential for Error

The case was brought before the Supreme Court after the city of Redmond
sought direct review of a King County District Court decision to dismiss
charges against two men, Jason Wilson and Dean Moore, for driving with
suspended licenses.

Wilson's license was suspended for failing to deal with a speeding ticket,
and Moore's was lifted for failing to resolve a citation for driving without
liability insurance. A district-court judge concluded the suspensions didn't
comply with due process because DOL failed to provide the opportunity for an
administrative hearing and so dismissed the charges.

In writing for the majority, Justice Richard Sanders said the statutes "are
contrary to the guaranty of due process because they do not provide adequate
procedural safeguards to ensure against the erroneous deprivation of a
driver's interest in the continued use and possession of his or her driver's
license."

There is substantial potential for error in DOL decisions to revoke a
driver's license, especially given that DOL issues some 300,000 suspension
notices a year based on information from the courts, Sanders wrote. When a
driver receives notice his or her license is to be suspended, the individual
has 30 days to resolve the issue in court.

"He or she is not, however, offered any procedure to contest the suspension
other than being instructed by the notice to resolve the matter with the
court," Sanders wrote. "The public is left to its own devices to secure a
timely hearing from a court to reverse the error before the suspension takes
effect."

Burden on DOL

But in a seven-page dissenting opinion written by Justice Bobbe Bridge, four
justices argued that just because there's a potential for error, no evidence
was provided to show a pattern of erroneous license suspensions.

The dissenting justices also pointed out that requiring DOL to give an
administrative hearing to anyone whose license is suspended would require
vast public resources for the staff, time and space to conduct such
hearings.

"The majority seizes upon the scant record in these cases to answer a
question that has not been raised by any party and in so doing stretches the
requirements of due process beyond precedent and common sense - establishing
no clear benefit for the licensees and burdening an administrative system
designed by the Legislature to provide swift determination for the
protection of the motoring public," Bridge wrote.

Gerald Anderson, an assistant attorney general who advised DOL on the case,
said his office is still trying to digest the court's ruling. Because the
court struck down the statutes, it's unlikely DOL can devise an
administrative remedy, he said, adding "it's too early to speculate what
legislative remedies are possible."

A Redmond city prosecutor and a DOL spokesman would not comment yesterday,
both saying they needed more time to analyze the decision.

Financial Impact

The impact could be huge for Seattle, which has seized, towed and held
almost 5,000 vehicles a year from drivers with third-degree license
suspensions. Roughly 30 percent of those vehicles are scheduled for auction
because their owners could not pay fees, fines and storage charges. But the
city doesn't track how many are sold, said Kathryn Harper, spokeswoman for
the City Attorney's Office.

Some lawyers believe the city faces potential financial liability for
vehicles seized under its Operation Impound program.

"I think a strong argument can be made that all seizures were unlawful and
drivers deserve compensation. This would be additional legal basis for that
argument," said Lisa Daugaard, a public defender and outspoken critic of
Seattle's impound law.

The number of drivers who might seek compensation, the amount they might
want and the validity of their claims remain to be seen.

But a very rough estimate of $10 million in damages is reasonable, said Adam
Berger, an attorney who has brought a class-action lawsuit against the
city's former policy, which was in effect from 2000 to late 2002. After
that, police officers exercised discretion but still impounded the vehicles
of 80 percent of the drivers they cited for third-degree license
suspensions.

Berger's estimate is based on the premise that there could be 10,000 drivers
seeking compensation, with claims of about $1,000 each, on average.

Meanwhile, impound opponents who pushed the City Council to dump the
controversial impound law in a 6-2 vote two weeks ago said the court's
decision validated their arguments.

"It's a welcome decision as far as I'm concerned," said Councilwoman Jean
Godden, who co-sponsored the ordinance to repeal the impound policy.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels signed the ordinance into law yesterday.

© 2004 The Seattle Times Company. All rights reserved
--

[MYSONSDAD]

"Children learn what they live"

[wendl]

Gotta love Redmond.
My ex was caught driving while suspended 4 times, his license was suspended due to failure to pay his traffic tickets, the courts did give him the opportunity to pay these fines on a payment plan to keep his license in force, which he never did.

SO he moved to TX then FL got a drivers license in TX moved back to WA and was caught driving while intoxicated. My ex drives frequently while drinking.

WA State in many way how they handle things really suck. Seems to me your license wouldn't be suspended if you FOLLOWED the road rules duh, yes they should be suspended, just my opinion.

SO many people drive drunk in Redmond, Bellevue (richy cities) as well as the other cities close by.

[ready4change]

My husband is a police officer in South King County, in fact he is working a DUI task force as I type this . . .

it is a hugh epidemic everywhere, the fatalities involved are devastating and there are tons of repeat offenders; these people are inflicted with the cunning baffling disease of addiction; there is no reasoning and "learning a lesson".  The punishments have to be so severe that they are not given an option to get behind the wheel.  Perhaps a microchip that shorts out a vehicle when they get in . . . hahahahaha


Driving w/lic susp 3rd isn't even arrestable anymore but they do tow the vehicle.  My ex husb has had a susp license for 6 years due to failing to pay child support; it doesn't really  make a difference.  Honestly, my ex is really involved with my kids so I wouldn't trade that for the $/child support anyway.  

The people that refuse to obey laws cost us all money in one way or another, increased insurance cost, paying for jail stays, public defenders; the bottom line is that there isn't a whole lot anyone can do to compel these people to chage into law-abiding productive humans.

My uninsured motorist is paid on-time every month; you know if they don't have a flippin' license, they definitely don't have insurance

[wendl]

Ready4Change,

I am an insuranace agent so I know that I pay my uninsured motorists coverage as I personally don't want have to pay if some idiot hits me without insurance.

A police officer in South King County huh, at least he isn't an officer in Tacoma that place scares me and is ewwwwww.

I don't think states should be able to take your drivers license or any kind of license for that matter away should a parent be behind in cs, hell if a cp quit her job and couldn't support the child her license would'nt get supsended she would (or maybe would) go on welfare.


**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

[ready4change]

Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly on the driver's license thing.  I think this state and probably others set NCP's up to get caught up in a vicious cycle. They're supposed to pay cs or lose their license, can't drive so can't work  . . . . . . huh?

My exhusband lives two miles from me and is there at the drop of a hat if the kids need him.  How can you put a price on that?  But his license is suspended, mainly because he had a child from a previous relationship and the mother was on welfare so the state enforcement is being pushed to stay on him.  

There are definitely exceptions, men that have kids, don't work, don't pay, don't visit, have more kids, live off other people; those are the kids that suffer the most especially if the mom's head is empty too.  

I'm glad my husband doesn't work for Tacoma, their agency just lost a handful of officers to Lakewood PD; a startup agency---so I guess there must be some draw.  My husband originally worked in law enforment down by the US/Mexico border, he says WA is a walk in the park compared to there.  I guess it's all in one's perception.

Merry Christmas!!!