Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Corcoran
133 So. 3d 616
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- June 17, 2012, Corcoran stopped for speeding (60 mph in 45 mph zone); no registration or proof of insurance; signs of impairment observed.
- Corcoran admitted drinking (two glasses wine, one beer); field sobriety tests conducted; officer determined impairment and unsafe to drive.
- Corcoran arrested for DUI; implied-consent warning read; Corcoran refused a breath test; license suspended for 12 months for refusal.
- Corcoran invoked formal administrative review; subpoenas served for Officer Link and breath test operator Betham.
- Formal hearing held July 23, 2012; DDL-1 to DDL-6 admitted; Betham declined to testify or be required; Corcoran nonpresent.
- Circuit Court granted Corcoran’s certiorari, remanding for a new hearing; Department later challenged remand and sought second-tier review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Betham’s absence violated due process | Corcoran contends Betham’s presence was relevant and subpoena noncompliance harmed due process. | Department argues no due process violation; proffered testimony would be nonessential or cumulative. | Remand required; potential error harmless but due process not satisfied without remand. |
| Whether the circuit court improperly struck remand | Corcoran urged remand based on due process and case law requiring new hearing. | Department asserts remand was proper remedy per precedent; amended order cannot permanently quash suspension. | Remand proper per controlling precedent; amended order improper. |
| Proper scope of formal review under §322.2615(7)-(6) | Driver may subpoena witnesses and present evidence relevant to contested issues. | Hearing officer may limit witnesses and evidence; Betham’s testimony may be irrelevant. | Lower court erred in deeming Betham’s testimony irrelevant; due process requires appropriate remedy. |
| Whether the hearing officer erred in excluding Betham’s testimony | Betham witnessed the arrest and observation; testimony could affect material facts. | Betham’s presence alone is insufficient to alter issues; no substantive testimony offered. | Error at most in relevancy; remedy is remand for proper testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Chamizo, 753 So.2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (proffered testimony may be cumulative; remand appropriate where evidence relevant but not presented)
- Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Auster, 52 So.3d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (distinguishes Chamizo; subpoena context depends on articulated purpose)
- Tynan v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 909 So.2d 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (remand when due process was not accorded in first hearing)
- Icaza v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 37 So.3d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (circuit court must apply correct law on remand due to due process)
- Luttrell v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 983 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (procedural due process limits and standard of review in formal review)
- Griffin v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 909 So.2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (due process and notice in formal administrative review)