Post by sadie on Dec 15, 2004 22:00:29 GMT -5
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
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
You menace!!! 
I have some questions for the judge if he will let me speak on behalf of the case. I know he is going to try to ignore what I am saying, non response, if I don't have an attorney contracted for me, ha ha. I mailed this stuff on the 8th of Dec, and gave 10 business days to respond. I am wondering if I should send all of this to head prosecutor of the county. I looked under a website for prosecutors in this area that states an officer can call for a warrant for any reason he or she likes. Constitutional issues can be brought up in this next step I am going to "pretrial" conference. Will this new ruling make any difference to me? It makes like difficult when the police follow people around here that specifically drive older cars, just to find something wrong to pull them over. I changed the plate on the car and even got it painted. I got pulled over 9-1 for driving 10 under the limit in the "wrong lane". I should have asked for a probable cause hearing because that is not really a good reason to pull someone over. I believe next step is to send "notice of default". Is the District Attorney over the Prosecutor of the County? Why can't I get a response from them before I'm dragged into court? They're threatening me with a warrant for arrest if I don't show up!!!