Beyer v. Transportation Dept
155 Idaho 40
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Beyer was stopped in November 2010 for allegedly illegal right turn into the left lane of a four-lane road.
- The officer smelled alcohol, observed glassy/bloodshot eyes, and Beyer admitted drinking before driving; a breath test exceeded the limit.
- Beyer was issued an administrative license suspension (ALS) and requested a hearing before an ITD hearing officer.
- The hearing officer upheld the suspension; Beyer appealed to the district court, which affirmed.
- This Court reviews ITD ALS decisions de novo on the agency record, deferring to agency credibility findings if supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop legally caused by the officer’s observations under I.C. 49-644(1)? | Beyer contends the stop was unlawful. | State argues officer had legal cause to stop for a traffic violation. | Yes; substantial evidence supports legality of the stop. |
| Was the 15-minute observation period before the breath test properly conducted? | Beyer asserts the officer was distracted and failed monitoring. | State argues monitoring complied under SOP and case law. | Yes; substantial evidence supports proper monitoring. |
| Did Beyer receive due process in the ALS hearing, including the video production issue and hearing modality? | Beyer claims procedural due process violations and need for in-person hearing. | State maintains no constitutional violation; invited error precludes prejudice; in-person hearing not mandatory. | No due-process violation; invited error doctrine and lack of prejudice sustain. |
| Was the credibility dispute between Beyer and the officer resolved by the agency without error? | Disputed credibility should require in-person testimony. | Agency properly weighed conflicting testimony. | Agency findings were supported by substantial evidence; no reversal urged. |
| Does the record support vacating ALS based on statutory SOP noncompliance or other grounds? | Beyer argues noncompliance warrants vacating. | State bears burden to show grounds to uphold; no error in findings. | No; record supports upholding the ALS. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kane v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 139 Idaho 586 (Ct. App. 2003) (burden shifting in ALS review)
- State v. DeFranco, 143 Idaho 335 (Ct. App. 2006) (SOP/breath test standards)
- In re Mahurin, 140 Idaho 656 (Ct. App. 2004) (noncompliance grounds for vacating ALS)
- Bennett v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 147 Idaho 141 (Ct. App. 2009) (monitoring period must be adequate to detect belching/vomiting)
- State v. Carson, 133 Idaho 451 (Ct. App. 1999) (monitoring period and officer’s senses sufficient")
- Gibbar v. Idaho Transp. Dept., 143 Idaho 937 (Ct. App. 2006) (in-person hearing where credibility is at issue; not always required)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (abides multi-factor due-process inquiry for agency procedures)
- Price v. Payette County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 131 Idaho 426 (1998) (prejudice requirement in reviewing agency decisions)