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, completed an Implied Consent Affidavit that documented refusal but omitted the statutory "reasonable grounds" statement required by 47 O.S. § 753.
- DPS revoked Chandler's license; Chandler timely requested an administrative hearing but neither he nor counsel appeared at the March 3, 2014 hearing.
- The DPS hearing officer sustained the revocation based on Officer Plane's affidavit (taken as true for non-appearance) and DPS mailed its order.
- Chandler filed district-court review challenging the affidavit as facially deficient under § 753 and relying on § 754(D) (the statute that deems an officer’s sworn report true, "absent any facial deficiency," when a requesting person fails to appear).
- The district court ruled Chandler failed to exhaust administrative remedies under amended 47 O.S. § 6-211(F) (which requires actual appearance at the administrative hearing to preserve merits review) and held § 754(D) did not require DPS to screen the affidavit for facial deficiencies or apply to supplemental affidavits.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed: it held § 754(D) requires facial review of a sworn report when the licensee fails to appear, and the record contained a facially deficient affidavit with no proof that a supplemental affidavit and new notice cured the defect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a licensee who fails to appear at the administrative hearing must nevertheless exhaust administrative remedies under 47 O.S. § 6-211(F) to challenge a facially deficient sworn report | Chandler: § 6-211(F) does not bar district court review of a facial deficiency because § 754(D) governs admission of officer reports when the licensee fails to appear | DPS: Post-Sipes amendment to § 6-211(F) requires licensee appearance; failure to appear limits review to procedural issues and precludes challenging the affidavit | Held: Chandler need not exhaust § 6-211(F) remedies to raise a facial deficiency under § 754(D); the appearance requirement limits merits review but not review for statutory compliance of sworn reports when licensee fails to appear |
| Whether § 754(D) requires DPS/hearing officer to perform a facial review of the officer’s sworn report where the licensee fails to appear | Chandler: § 754(D) plainly requires sworn reports to be "absent any facial deficiency" to be deemed true and admitted; facial deficiency includes missing § 753 reasonable-grounds statement | DPS: § 754(D) does not apply to supplemental-affidavit issues and was not intended to address statutory-compliance defects that are evidentiary, not jurisdictional | Held: § 754(D) unambiguously requires facial review; missing § 753 reasonable-grounds language is a facial deficiency preventing admission under § 754(D) |
| Whether a supplemental sworn affidavit cured the facial deficiency in the original affidavit | Chandler: The record contains no proof that a supplemental affidavit and new notice cured the defect; absent proper service and new notice, revocation remains invalid | DPS: Supplemental affidavit can cure defects if timely served and provides due process | Held: On the present record there is no proof the supplemental affidavit and required new notice were served; the supplemental affidavit did not cure the facially deficient original affidavit |
| Whether the district court’s sustaining of the revocation should be reversed | Chandler: Revocation is vulnerable because DPS relied on a facially deficient affidavit and did not show proper supplementation | DPS: Hearing officer’s finding should stand; supplemental materials can validate the revocation | Held: Reversed — the revocation was supported by a facially deficient sworn report and no proof that proper supplementation/new notice cured the defect |
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 and a "patent" deficiency if missing)
- Sipes v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 950 P.2d 881 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997) (addressed exhaustion where licensee failed to appear and framed the "facially deficient" standard)
- Tucker v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 326 P.3d 542 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014) (applied Chase principle that a § 753-compliant sworn report substitutes for officer testimony)
- Roulston v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 324 P.3d 1261 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014) (held revocation vulnerable where administrative evidence is patently deficient)
- 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 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 DPS revocation: test result/refusal and officer’s sworn reasonable-grounds report)