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, prepared an Implied Consent Affidavit that omitted the statutorily required §753 “reasonable grounds” statement, and served Chandler with the form. A supplemental sworn report (back of the form) contained the missing statement but there is no proof it was served before the administrative hearing.
- Chandler requested an administrative hearing under 47 O.S. §754(D) but neither he nor counsel appeared at the March 3, 2014 hearing; the DPS hearing officer sustained revocation based on Officer Plane’s affidavit and lifted a stay.
- Chandler timely sought district court review challenging the facial deficiency of the officer’s sworn report (lack of §753 reasonable grounds language) and arguing §754(D) entitles the district court to consider that procedural/evidentiary issue despite his nonappearance at the administrative hearing.
- DPS argued Chandler failed to exhaust administrative remedies per amended 47 O.S. §6-211(F) (which requires actual appearance at the administrative hearing) and that §754(D)’s “facial deficiency” language doesn’t apply to supplemental affidavits or to the facts here.
- The district court concluded Chandler failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that §754(D) did not apply to the supplemental affidavit issue; this Court reversed, holding §754(D) requires DPS/hearing officer to facially review the sworn report when the licensee does not appear and that the record showed a facially deficient sworn report with no proof the supplemental affidavit cured that defect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a licensee who fails to attend the administrative hearing forfeit judicial review of a facial deficiency in the officer’s sworn report? | Chandler: No — §754(D) makes an absent licensee’s challenge to a facially deficient sworn report a procedural/evidentiary matter reviewable despite nonappearance; §6-211(F) does not bar such review. | DPS: Yes — post-Sipes amendment to §6-211(F) requires actual appearance; failure to appear precludes merits and evidentiary review. | Held: Chandler — §754(D) applies; facial compliance with §753 is a prerequisite and is reviewable when licensee fails to appear; exhaustion under §6-211(F) does not bar review of this procedural/evidentiary defect. |
| What is a “facial deficiency” under §754(D)? | Chandler: The absence of the §753 reasonable-grounds statement is a facial (patent) deficiency that defeats automatic admission of the sworn report. | DPS: ‘‘Facial deficiency’’ refers to obvious defects (e.g., unsigned) and does not encompass §753 omissions or supplemental affidavits. | Held: Chandler — ‘‘facial deficiency’’ includes a missing §753 reasonable-grounds statement; such defects are patent and render the sworn report inadmissible under §754(D). |
| Can a supplemental sworn affidavit cure a facially deficient original sworn report absent proof it was served with a new revocation notice? | Chandler: No — a supplemental affidavit cannot validate the original revocation unless properly served and part of the administrative record. | DPS: Yes — supplemental affidavit may cure defect if provided in time and with due process. | Held: Chandler — record lacked proof the supplemental affidavit and a new notice were served before the hearing; under Shoptaw and statutory requirements the supplement 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 containing reasonable-grounds statement as statutory prerequisite; patent/facial deficiency doctrine)
- Trusty v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 381 P.3d 726 (Okla. 2016) (reiterates two statutory prerequisites for revocation: test report/refusal and officer’s sworn reasonable-grounds report)
- Sipes v. Dept. of Public Safety, 950 P.2d 881 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997) (addressed nonappearance at admin hearing before §6-211(F) amendment; discussed ‘‘facially deficient’’ evidence)
- Shoptaw v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 370 P.3d 1217 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016) (held a supplemental affidavit does not validate a revocation absent service of a new notice of revocation and inclusion in the administrative record)
- Tucker v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 326 P.3d 542 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014) (applied Chase and related authorities on facially deficient sworn reports)
- Roulston v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 324 P.3d 1261 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014) (held missing §753 statement makes administrative revocation evidence patently deficient)