CHANDLER v. STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY
419 P.3d 298
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- On Aug. 7, 2013 Officer Plane arrested Conner Chandler for DUI and completed a standard DPS Affidavit/Notice of Revocation; the form did not include the §753 required statement that the officer had "reasonable grounds" to believe Chandler was driving under the influence.
- Chandler timely requested an administrative hearing under §754(D) but neither he nor counsel attended the March 3, 2014 hearing; the DPS hearing officer sustained the revocation based on Officer Plane’s affidavit.
- Chandler filed for district-court review, alleging the officer’s sworn report was facially deficient for failing to state reasonable grounds as required by §753 and that DPS failed to comply with §754(D).
- The district court held Chandler failed to exhaust administrative remedies under amended §6-211(F) (which requires actual appearance at the admin hearing) and ruled §754(D) did not apply to the supplemental affidavit issue.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding §754(D)’s "absent any facial deficiency" clause requires DPS/hearing officer to facially review the sworn report when the licensee fails to appear, and the record showed a facially deficient sworn report with no proof a supplemental affidavit cured it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether licensee must exhaust administrative remedies under §6-211(F) to challenge facial deficiency when he missed the admin hearing | Chandler: §754(D) governs when a licensee fails to appear and allows district court review of facial deficiencies without exhaustion | DPS: Post-Sipes amendment to §6-211(F) requires actual appearance; failure to appear precludes merits review | Court: §6-211(F) limits merits review but does not bar review of procedural/evidentiary facial-deficiency issues under §754(D); exhaustion not required here |
| Whether §754(D)’s "absent any facial deficiency" requires DPS/HO to review sworn report for §753 compliance when licensee fails to appear | Chandler: §754(D) mandates that only facially sufficient sworn reports can be deemed true and admitted in absentia; failure to include reasonable-grounds is a facial deficiency | DPS: "Facial deficiency" applies only to obvious defects (e.g., unsigned); missing reasonable-grounds is evidentiary and not a facial defect; supplemental affidavit can cure | Court: "Facial deficiency" includes a missing §753 reasonable-grounds statement; §754(D) requires facial review and admission only of §753-compliant reports when licensee absent |
| Whether a supplemental sworn affidavit cured the original facial defect and validated the revocation | Chandler: No proof in record that any supplemental affidavit was served with a new notice as required; thus revocation unsupported | DPS: Supplemental affidavit can cure defect; prior cases allowed curing where served timely | Court: Record contains no proof of service or new notice; under Shoptaw supplemental affidavit did not cure absence of proper notice; revocation invalid |
| Proper remedy and scope of decision | Chandler: Vacatur of revocation based on facially deficient report and lack of proof supplemental cure | DPS: Affirm district court sustaining revocation | Court: Reverse district court; revocation unsupported by record and reversed; ruling prospective for certain appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Chase v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 795 P.2d 1048 (Okla. 1990) (identifies officer's sworn report including reasonable-grounds statement as a statutory prerequisite and describes "patent" deficiency)
- Sipes v. Dept. of Public Safety, 950 P.2d 881 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997) (addressed exhaustion when licensee missed admin hearing and remanded for limited review of administrative evidence)
- Roulston v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 324 P.3d 1261 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014) (held sworn report missing §753 statement renders administrative evidence patently deficient)
- Tucker v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 326 P.3d 542 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014) (discusses limits of appellate review of DPS revocations)
- Gibson v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 359 P.3d 216 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015) (held a supplemental sworn report can support revocation where properly served before the hearing)
- Shoptaw v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 370 P.3d 1217 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016) (held a supplemental affidavit did not validate revocation when it lacked a new notice of revocation and proof of service)
- Trusty v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 381 P.3d 726 (Okla. 2016) (reaffirmed the two statutory prerequisites for administrative revocation: test or refusal, and officer's sworn report of reasonable grounds)