Impaired Driving Elimination Act Violates Due Process, Court Says

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has declared that the newly enacted Impaired Driving Elimination Act is unconstitutional. Due to go into effect on November 1, 2017, the Act would have virtually eliminated the administrative hearing process for revocation of driver’s licenses, would have made refusal of a breath test illegal, and would have expanded use of ignition interlock devices.

A group of Oklahoma attorneys challenged the Act in court last summer, and the court halted implementation of the Act while the legal challenge was pending. Just recently, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued its ruling declaring that the Act violates due process and violates the “single subject” rule against including multiple topics in a law.

In particular, the Act violates due process because it would have allowed police officers to rip up a DUI suspect’s driver’s license and suspend his driving privileges without any opportunity for an administrative hearing. Under current law, drivers suspected of impairment have the right to an administrative hearing to determine whether their driver privileges should be reinstated. The Act would have violated drivers’ right to due process of law when they are only suspected, not convicted of driver under the influence.

Further, the Act implicated two aspects of due process: procedural due process and substantive due process. By denying drivers the opportunity for a legal method to challenge the license revocation, the Act violated procedural due process – the opportunity for a hearing before rights are taken away. By the act of police officers seizing and ripping up driver’s licenses, the Act violated substantive due process – actual taking of property without due process of law.

The Supreme Court pointed out that driver’s license revocation does require due process. “More than forty years ago the U. S. Supreme Court explained that revocation of a driver’s license must conform to the Due Process Clause. … ‘[S]uspension of issued licenses thus involves state action that adjudicates important interests of the licensees. In such cases the licenses are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment.’” Hunsucker v. Fallin, 2017 OK 100, ¶14 (2017). The Court went on to explain that the state of Oklahoma had failed to articulate any state purpose or goal of law enforcement in ripping up the licenses. Therefore, it found that the license revocation portion of the Impaired Driving Elimination Act was unconstitutional.

Need legal advice on defenses for your DUI charge? Clint Patterson, Esq., of Patterson Law Firm, a former Tulsa prosecutor now using his trial experience and expert-level knowledge of DUI science to defend drivers, assesses his clients’ best options for defenses and sentencing. To schedule a case evaluation, visit Patterson Law Firm online or call Clint’s office at (918) 550-9175.