Carrier v. Secretary of State
2012 ME 142
| Me. | 2012Background
- Carrier killed three people in a 1996 drunk-driving collision; pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter and aggravated OUI.
- He was sentenced in 1997 with a life license suspension noted for manslaughter; life suspension was reflected in the trial court's opinion and Secretary of State notices.
- In 2009, Carrier petitioned for reinstatement under 29-A M.R.S. § 2454(5); the hearing officer denied with two-year rights to refile.
- On remand, the hearing officer again denied reinstatement after considering victims’ family testimony.
- Carrier petitioned for judicial review; the Superior Court held that § 2454(5) requires consideration of victims’ testimony and affirmed the denial on public-safety grounds, remanding to determine if the decision was grounded in public safety.
- The 2011 petition and hearing allowed victims’ families to testify; the hearing officer relied on family opposition, issuing denial; the court upheld the denial, noting the statute authorizes taking victims’ testimony into account, not only public-safety concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2454(5) requires considering victims’ testimony in reinstatement. | Carrier: families’ testimony relates to public safety. | Secretary: statute mandates consideration of family testimony. | statutory requirement acknowledged; testimony may address non-safety impacts |
| Whether the hearing officer erred by giving weight to family opposition. | Carrier: families cannot veto reinstatement. | Secretary: families’ testimony is a permissible factor. | court affirmed denial based on consideration of the testimony under § 2454(5) comunque |
| Whether Carrier preserved the double jeopardy claim for review. | Carrier: the decision is punitive and violates double jeopardy. | Secretary: argument not raised below; not preserved. | issue not preserved; no review on the merits |
| Whether equal protection was preserved and properly analyzed. | Carrier: statute as applied is irrationally disparate. | Secretary: rational basis; victims’ impact a legitimate consideration. | issue not preserved; if reached, rational basis would sustain the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGee v. Sec’y of State, 896 A.2d 933 (Me. 2006) (statutory interpretation and standard of review for Secretary of State decisions)
- DiPietro v. Sec’y of State, 802 A.2d 399 (Me. 2002) (administrative suspensions vs. revocations; public safety considerations)
- State v. Savard, 659 A.2d 1265 (Me. 1995) (public safety as a basis for certain license actions)
- New England Whitewater Ctr., Inc. v. Dep’t of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988) (preservation of issues for appellate review)
- Poole v. State, 2012 ME 92 (Me. 2012) (two-step equal protection analysis; rational basis standard)