CHANDLER v. STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2017 OK CIV APP 47
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- On Aug. 7, 2013 Officer Plane arrested Conner Chandler for DUI and served an Officer's Affidavit/Notice of Revocation stating Chandler refused chemical testing; the Affidavit omitted the §753 "reasonable grounds" statement.
- DPS revoked Chandler's license and scheduled an administrative hearing; Chandler timely requested the hearing but neither he nor counsel attended.
- The DPS hearing officer sustained the revocation based on the officer's affidavit (deeming it true for Chandler's nonappearance) and DPS mailed its order.
- Chandler filed district court review arguing the Affidavit was facially deficient for failing to include §753's reasonable-grounds statement and that §754(D) requires DPS to admit only facially sufficient sworn reports when the licensee fails to appear.
- The district court ruled Chandler failed to exhaust administrative remedies under amended 47 O.S. §6-211(F) (which requires the licensee actually appear at the administrative hearing) and declined to reach the merits; Chandler appealed.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed: it held §754(D)'s "absent any facial deficiency" requires DPS/hearing officers to facially review sworn reports when a licensee does not appear, the missing §753 reasonable-grounds statement is a facial deficiency, and the supplemental affidavit was not shown to have been served on Chandler with a new notice of revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §6-211(F)'s appearance requirement bars district-court review of facial deficiencies in a sworn report when the licensee failed to attend the administrative hearing | Chandler: §754(D) governs nonappearance and allows district review of facial deficiencies (procedural/evidentiary), so exhaustion under §6-211(F) is not required | DPS: post-Sipes amendment to §6-211(F) requires actual appearance; failure to appear prevents merits or evidentiary review in district court | Court: §6-211(F) does not bar review of §754(D) facial-deficiency issues; Chandler need not exhaust administrative remedies to challenge a facially deficient sworn report when he did not appear |
| Whether a sworn report missing the §753 "reasonable grounds" statement is a "facial deficiency" under §754(D) | Chandler: omission of §753 reasonable-grounds statement is a facial/patent deficiency making the report inadmissible under §754(D) | DPS: such defects are evidentiary/substantive and could be cured or raised only at the administrative hearing; supplemental affidavits can cure | Court: Missing §753 reasonable-grounds statement is a facial deficiency; §754(D) requires facial compliance for admission when licensee absent |
| Whether §754(D) requires DPS/hearing officer to review sworn reports for facial compliance when licensee/counsel do not appear | Chandler: §754(D)'s plain language and legislative history mandate facial review and admission only if no facial deficiency | DPS: §754(D) was not intended to address supplemental-affidavit situations and does not impose a separate duty to staff to detect latent defects | Court: §754(D) imposes a mandatory, not discretionary, obligation to admit only facially sufficient sworn reports when the licensee fails to appear |
| Whether a later supplemental sworn affidavit cured the facial deficiency when the administrative hearing occurred | Chandler: supplemental affidavit must have been properly served with a new notice of revocation to validate revocation | DPS: supplemental affidavit may cure the defect and preserve the revocation if properly in file | Court: Appellate record lacks proof the supplemental affidavit and a new notice of revocation were served on Chandler before the hearing; supplemental affidavit did not validate the revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Chase v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 795 P.2d 1048 (Okla. 1990) (identifies officer's sworn report with reasonable-grounds statement as a statutory prerequisite; patent deficiency on face can invalidate revocation)
- Sipes v. Dept. of Public Safety, 950 P.2d 881 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997) (addressed nonappearance at administrative hearing and used "facially deficient" standard for evidence on remand)
- Davis v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 37 P.3d 974 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001) (post‑Sipes treatment of exhaustion under §6-211(F))
- Chyzy v. Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety, 143 P.3d 233 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (limitation of district court review to procedural issues when §6-211(F) exhaustion not met)
- Roulston v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 324 P.3d 1261 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014) (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) (procedural framework for appeals from implied-consent revocations)
- Shoptaw v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 370 P.3d 1217 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016) (supplemental affidavit does not validate revocation absent new notice of revocation and proof of service)