Bradley Riffe v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2016 SC 000219
Ky.Sep 26, 2017Background
- On Aug. 31, 2013, Bradley Riffe was stopped, arrested for suspected DUI, and refused an Intoxilyzer test on counsel's advice; the trial court entered a pretrial statutory license suspension.
- Riffe was tried by jury on Oct. 16, 2013: acquitted of the DUI charge; convicted of speeding and pleaded guilty to certain vehicle-registration/insurance-related offenses.
- Immediately after acquittal, Riffe's counsel orally asked the district court to lift the pretrial suspension; the court denied the request and requested briefing.
- Nineteen days after the judgment of acquittal, the Commonwealth moved under KRS 189A.107(2) for a post-acquittal license-suspension hearing based on Riffe’s refusal to take the alcohol-concentration test.
- At the hearing Riffe stipulated prior DUI convictions and refusal; the trial court imposed the statutory maximum 36-month suspension. The circuit court and Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court determined the controversy was moot because the 36-month suspension expired before its review and none of the mootness exceptions applied; the appeal was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court lost jurisdiction to impose a post-acquittal license suspension because the Commonwealth waited to file its suspension motion after entry of judgment | Riffe: the Commonwealth must move simultaneously with entry of judgment; delay deprived the court of jurisdiction | Commonwealth: post-acquittal motion under KRS 189A.107(2) was properly filed and heard; no jurisdictional defect | Court did not reach merits—case dismissed as moot because suspension expired before review |
| Whether the Court should decide the statutory interpretation of KRS 189A.107(2) despite mootness | Riffe: merits should be decided to guide lower courts | Commonwealth: mootness bars review absent an exception | Mootness bars review; no exception (collateral consequences, voluntary cessation, capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review, or public-interest) applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94 (Ky. 2014) (comprehensive discussion of mootness doctrine and exceptions)
- Saint Joseph Hospital v. Frye, 415 S.W.3d 631 (Ky. 2013) (recognition that events during appeal may render a case moot and support dismissal)
- Lexington Herald-Leader Co. v. Meigs, 660 S.W.2d 658 (Ky. 1983) (application of capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review in news-media voir dire context)
- United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (discussion of voluntary cessation and mootness principles)