434 P.3d 116
Wyo.2019Background
- On Sept. 29, 2016, Ariel Casiano was arrested for DWUI and a warrant-authorized blood draw was taken; lab testing (delivered 18 days later) showed BAC 0.10%.
- Municipal prosecutors moved to dismiss the criminal DWUI case, asserting an 18-day gap in the chain of custody rendered the blood-test results inadmissible; the municipal court dismissed the case without prejudice and without ruling on admissibility.
- WYDOT administratively suspended Casiano’s license for 90 days under the statutory implied-consent suspension process.
- Casiano argued to the Office of Administrative Hearings that collateral estoppel barred WYDOT from using the BAC results because the prosecutor had asserted those results were inadmissible in the dismissed criminal case.
- OAH rejected collateral estoppel (no privity, no showing the 18‑day gap caused a custody problem, and the criminal dismissal did not decide admissibility); the district court affirmed. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecutor’s statement in the dismissed criminal case that the BAC was inadmissible collaterally estops WYDOT from using the BAC in the administrative suspension | Collateral estoppel applies because the admissibility issue is identical and the prosecutor’s pleading conceded inadmissibility based on an 18‑day chain‑of‑custody gap | Collateral estoppel does not apply because the municipal court never decided admissibility (dismissal without prejudice), WYDOT was not a party/privity, and WYDOT lacked opportunity to litigate | Collateral estoppel does not apply; OAH may consider the BAC results |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. State, 245 P.3d 827 (Wyo. 2011) (collateral estoppel applied where a criminal court had actually decided admissibility of breath-test evidence)
- Elliott v. State, 247 P.3d 501 (Wyo. 2011) (no privity between WYDOT and prosecutors; administrative and criminal functions are distinct)
- Kroenlein Trust v. Kirchhefer, 357 P.3d 1118 (Wyo. 2015) (elements required for issue preclusion)
- Rawlinson v. Wallerich, 132 P.3d 204 (Wyo. 2006) (dismissal without prejudice has no preclusive effect)
- State v. Lemmer, 736 N.W.2d 650 (Minn. 2007) (administrative licensing agency and criminal prosecutor have distinct functions; collateral estoppel may not bind the state agency)