835 N.W.2d 518
Minn. Ct. App.2013Background
- Gary Constans, in his late 50s, accumulated multiple law‑enforcement contacts (at least nine since 2007) for driving slowly, crossing lane/shoulder lines, and impeding traffic on two‑lane highways.
- After repeated stops, he underwent two A‑5 driver‑evaluation interviews; he signed a written acknowledgement that another report could result in cancellation of his license.
- On July 19, 2012, a deputy stopped Constans for driving fully on the shoulder at low speed; the department then canceled his license effective August 13, 2012, as "inimical to public safety."
- Constans petitioned the district court under Minn. Stat. § 171.19 for reinstatement; the court conducted a de novo review, heard testimony (including a driver‑improvement specialist and Constans), and received police/department records.
- The district court found Constans’s conduct violated lane‑use and anti‑impeding statutes, posed safety risks, and that cancellation was not arbitrary or capricious; it denied reinstatement.
- Constans appealed, arguing (1) the commissioner lacked jurisdiction absent impaired driving, (2) cancellation was arbitrary/unreasonable given his record, and (3) procedural‑due‑process defects (the latter not raised below).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commissioner had jurisdiction to cancel absent evidence of impaired driving | Busse and related authority require impaired driving for an "inimical to public safety" cancellation | Statute §171.04(1)(10) and agency rules give commissioner discretion to cancel for other dangerous driving conduct | Commissioner has authority; cancellation need not be limited to impaired driving |
| Whether cancellation was arbitrary or unreasonable given Constans’s driving history | Constans argued his record lacks evidence of danger (few citations, no accidents) so cancellation was unwarranted | Commissioner argued multiple contacts, A‑5 interviews, admissions, and ongoing dangerous conduct supplied good cause | Not arbitrary or unreasonable; record supports finding that Constans’s conduct was inimical to public safety |
| Whether evidence outside the driving record (police reports, interview notes, driver statements) may be considered | Constans implied only formal citations should control | Department may rely on police reports, interview notes, and driver admissions when making cancellation decisions | Evidence beyond formal citations is permissible and was properly considered |
| Procedural due process claim | Constans asserted he lacked notice/opportunity because cancellation relied on conduct not on his driving record | Department and district court provided reinstatement hearing and relied on records/testimony; claim not raised below | Claim not preserved for appeal; in any event record shows meaningful opportunity to challenge cancellation |
Key Cases Cited
- Thorson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 519 N.W.2d 490 (Minn. Ct. App.) (presumption of regularity in administrative license matters)
- Igo v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 615 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. Ct. App.) (district court conducts de novo review in reinstatement hearings)
- Pallas v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 781 N.W.2d 163 (Minn. Ct. App.) (petitioner bears burden to prove entitlement to reinstatement)
- State v. Busse, 644 N.W.2d 79 (Minn.) (addressed cancellation in the context of repeated impaired‑driving convictions; did not foreclose other bases for "inimical to public safety")
- Madison v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 585 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. Ct. App.) (district court may consider letters/records relied on by commissioner at reinstatement hearing)