The Driver’s License: A Privilege or a Right?
Holding a driver’s license has been called both a privilege and a right. The Supreme Court weighed in on driver’s license revocation hearings and related issues in two cases from the 1970s.
In the case of Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971), the Supreme Court determined that an administrative driver’s license revocation must involve a determination of whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the driver will be found liable for the offense. In other words, a long-term (not temporary) license revocation because a driver might have committed a crime cannot be automatic. If it is truly automatic and does not consider fault or responsibility at all, it violates due process.
Specifically, the law at issue in Bell required drivers involved in accidents to post a bond or face license revocation. A driver contested this law, arguing that it violated due process because no finding of fault was required. If you were in an accident, you had to post a bond or your license would be suspended – regardless of whether you were at fault in the accident.
The Supreme Court agreed with the driver that possessing a driver’s license is more like a right than a privilege, although the wording in states’ laws does not matter. “[C]ontinued possession [of a driver’s license] may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood”, as it was for the driver in the case. Id. at 539. As a result, the state should provide a hearing regarding revocation that is “meaningful” and “appropriate to the nature of the case” to determine whether there is a “reasonable possibility of a judgment being rendered against [the driver] as a result of the accident”. Id. at 541-542 [internal citations omitted].
In a DUI suspension case, Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (1979), the Supreme Court expanded on the Bell ruling by confirming that brief administrative license suspensions in the interest of public safety do not violate due process. Similar to Oklahoma law, Massachusetts law required a 90-day license suspension if a driver refused to take a breath test and required an immediate hearing for the driver after the suspension began.
The Court’s opinion notes that the suspension is for only 90 days and that an administrative hearing is immediately available. Further, it states that the risks of incorrect observation or deliberate misstatements by the reporting police officer about the facts leading to the license suspension are very small. Id. at 10-17. Finally, the Court emphasizes the compelling public interest in highway safety that the government has in enacting this law. An automatic license suspension may deter drunk driving, encourage drivers to take breath tests, and remove drunk drivers who refuse a test from the road. Id. at 17-19.
If your driver’s license has been suspended or revoked due to DUI charges, seek out an attorney who knows the Oklahoma criminal law system inside and out. 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, has the experience and the insight to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your case. To schedule a case evaluation, visit Patterson Law Firm online or call Clint’s office at (918) 550-9175.