David Carver v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety, 239 So. 3d 226

Carver was arrested for DWI in 2009 (refused chemical test) and again in 2014 (refused; later pled guilty but charge was ultimately dismissed).
After the 2014 dismissal, Office of Motor Vehicles denied full reinstatement under La. R.S. 32:667(H)(3) (second/subsequent refusal exclusion) and required an ignition interlock under La. R.S. 32:667(I)(1)(a).
Carver exhausted administrative review, sought judicial review, and moved for a declaratory judgment that the two statutory provisions were unconstitutional.
The district court held both provisions violated the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. and Louisiana Constitutions.
The State directly appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which reviewed de novo and reversed, holding the provisions constitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether La. R.S. 32:667(H)(3) (no fee exemption after second/subsequent refusal) violates procedural due process	Carver: the statute imposes punitive, duplicative penalties based solely on prior arrests (not convictions) and deprives rights without adequate process	State: administrative hearing and statutory procedures provide notice and an opportunity to be heard; statute is an exercise of police power	Held: No procedural due process violation; administrative hearing satisfies notice and opportunity to be heard and statute is presumptively constitutional
Whether La. R.S. 32:667(H)(3) and (I)(1)(a) (interlock requirement) violate substantive due process by penalizing refusal absent conviction	Carver: penalties are punitive and irrational because they rely on prior arrests rather than proven illegal conduct	State: driving is a regulated privilege; implied-consent scheme and police power rationally justify penalties for refusal to submit to chemical testing	Held: No substantive due process violation; provisions are rationally related to public safety and permissible regulation of the driving privilege

Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (upholding certain nonconsensual blood tests under facts involving exigent circumstances)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (recognizing constitutionality of warrantless blood testing in DUI context under limited circumstances)
Monroe v. High, 254 La. 362, 223 So.2d 834 (La. 1969) (recognizing Louisiana's implied-consent scheme to chemical testing)
State v. Edwards, 787 So.2d 981 (La. 2001) (holding driving is a privilege and the State may condition that privilege)
Polk v. Edwards, 626 So.2d 1128 (discussing breadth of state police power and deference to legislative public-safety judgments)
State v. Golston, 67 So.3d 452 (La. 2011) (procedural due process standards for administrative suspension hearings)