Jerry S. Straub v. Pat S. Reed, Commissioner, W. Va. DMV
239 W. Va. 844
| W. Va. | 2017Background
- Straub was arrested for DUI on Jan. 9, 2011; secondary test showed BAC 0.107% and he admitted drinking.
- The municipal DUI criminal charge was dismissed on March 10, 2011.
- DMV did not receive the arresting officer’s DUI information until Nov. 27, 2012 and issued an administrative revocation on Dec. 18, 2012 (≈23 months after arrest).
- Straub requested an OAH hearing; after continuances the hearing occurred Mar. 10, 2015; Straub did not contest that he was driving intoxicated but argued delays prejudiced him.
- OAH issued its decision affirming revocation on Feb. 22, 2016 (≈11 months after hearing); the circuit court affirmed and this Court likewise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Straub’s Argument | DMV/OAH (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre‑revocation delay (≈23 months) violated due process | Delay was excessive and violated procedural due process; analogous to criminal statute‑of‑limitations bar | DMV: officer’s late report does not bar administrative action absent actual prejudice | Court: Delay was excessive but Straub showed no actual prejudice; no relief granted |
| Whether post‑hearing delay (≈11 months) by OAH violated due process | Delay caused uncertainty and career harm (recruiters withdrew) — violated rights | OAH/DMV: delay unfortunate but plaintiff must show actual and substantial prejudice | Court: Delay was egregious but Straub failed to prove actual and substantial prejudice; no relief |
| Whether criminal statute of limitations or criminal procedural protections apply to administrative revocation | One‑year misdemeanor limitations should bar administrative action | DMV: administrative revocation is separate from criminal prosecution; criminal limitations inapplicable | Court: Administrative proceedings are distinct from criminal process; statute of limitations irrelevant |
| Whether agencies’ failure to adopt internal time limits violates due process | Agencies must be held to deadlines; absence of internal limits violates rights | DMV/OAH: statute does not create specific time mandates; remedy is for Legislature | Court: No statutory mandate for strict internal deadlines; argument for Legislature, not Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Abshire v. Cline, 193 W.Va. 180, 455 S.E.2d 649 (W. Va. 1995) (driver’s license is a protected property interest entitled to due process)
- Frantz v. Palmer, 211 W.Va. 188, 564 S.E.2d 398 (W. Va. 2001) (administrative agencies performing quasi‑judicial functions have an affirmative duty to dispose promptly of matters)
- Holland v. Miller, 230 W.Va. 35, 736 S.E.2d 35 (W. Va. 2012) (due process concerns arise from excessive delays in license suspension cases)
- Carpenter v. Cicchirillo, 222 W.Va. 66, 662 S.E.2d 508 (W. Va. 2008) (late law‑enforcement reporting does not bar DMV action absent actual prejudice)
- Reed v. Staffileno, 239 W.Va. 538, 803 S.E.2d 508 (W. Va. 2017) (party asserting OAH delay must prove actual and substantial prejudice; then court balances prejudice against reasons for delay)
- Donley, In re Petition of, 217 W.Va. 449, 618 S.E.2d 458 (W. Va. 2005) (long delay can be unreasonable but relief requires proof of prejudice)
- Jordan v. Roberts, 161 W.Va. 750, 246 S.E.2d 259 (W. Va. 1978) (administrative revocation distinct from criminal prosecution)
- Miller v. Moredock, 229 W.Va. 66, 726 S.E.2d 34 (W. Va. 2011) (availability of extraordinary relief does not absolve agencies of duty to render timely decisions)