Erickson v. Department of Public Safety
904 N.W.2d 352
| S.D. | 2017Background
- Erickson, a commercial driver since 2003, pleaded guilty on Nov. 3, 2011 to driving with a BAC of 0.08% or more (SDCL 32-23-1(1)); sentence was suspended and record later sealed.
- On Jan. 13, 2015 the South Dakota Department of Public Safety disqualified Erickson from operating commercial motor vehicles for one year under SDCL 32-12A-36(1).
- Erickson requested an administrative hearing; the ALJ recommended disqualification and the Department adopted that recommendation.
- Erickson appealed to circuit court; the court reviewed an audio of the plea, concluded he pleaded to SDCL 32-23-1(1) (BAC), and held SDCL 32-12A-36(1) did not apply because it (allegedly) contemplates only other subdivisions—thereby reversing the Department.
- The Department appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which reviewed statutory construction de novo and reversed the circuit court, holding SDCL 32-12A-36(1) covers convictions under SDCL 32-23-1(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a guilty plea to SDCL 32-23-1(1) (BAC ≥ 0.08%) qualifies as a "conviction" for "driving while under the influence" under SDCL 32-12A-36(1) | Erickson: SDCL 32-12A-36(1) does not apply to SDCL 32-23-1(1); therefore Department may not disqualify him | Department: SDCL 32-12A-36(1) references § 32-23-1 generally and covers all its subdivisions, including (1) | Held: SDCL 32-12A-36(1) contemplates all violations of § 32-23-1; conviction under § 32-23-1(1) supports one-year disqualification |
| Whether the circuit court properly augmented the administrative record and considered an issue not raised below | Erickson/court: augmentation permissible because alleged error involved distinct statutory subdivisions and procedural irregularity | Department: circuit court exceeded its authority; review is confined to the administrative record absent procedural irregularity shown in record | Held: The alleged error was a question of law, not a procedural irregularity; SDCL 1-26-35 did not authorize augmentation, so circuit court erred to expand the record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Underwood, 890 N.W.2d 240 (S.D. 2017) (standard: statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Webb v. Webb, 814 N.W.2d 818 (S.D. 2012) (defines "irregularity in procedure" as departures in trial disposition process)
- Fechner v. Case, 660 N.W.2d 631 (S.D. 2003) (discusses procedural irregularity/new trial analogies)
- Puetz Corp. v. S.D. Dep’t of Revenue, 871 N.W.2d 632 (S.D. 2015) (administrative and circuit court statutory-construction review is fully reviewable)