Martinez v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety
2014 OK CIV APP 17
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2013Background
- On Oct. 1, 2011 police found Ralph Martinez apparently asleep in a car near the curb; officers observed alcohol odor and signs of intoxication and Martinez was handcuffed and arrested.
- Officer Stevenson later placed Martinez in a patrol car, transported him to jail, and obtained a breath test showing BAC over the legal limit; Stevenson completed and submitted the §754 sworn report and seized Martinez’s license.
- DPS revoked Martinez’s license under 47 O.S. § 754; Martinez requested an administrative hearing, lost, then pursued a de novo trial in district court, which upheld the revocation.
- On appeal Martinez argued the §754(C) sworn report was defective because it was not made by the “arresting officer,” Stevenson lacked probable cause for a separate/second arrest, and the breath test exceeded the two-hour rule.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed whether the §754(C) sworn report must be by the arresting officer, whether the report is an affidavit of probable cause, whether a re-arrest occurred, and timeliness of the breath test; it affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who must sign §754(C) sworn report? | Martinez: statute requires the "arresting officer" to make the sworn report; Stevenson's report invalid. | DPS: statute requires a sworn report by an officer with personal knowledge, not necessarily the arresting officer. | The sworn report need only be from a law enforcement officer with personal knowledge; it need not be the arresting officer. |
| Function of §754(C) sworn report (probable cause?) | Martinez: the sworn report should function as affidavit establishing probable cause for stop/arrest. | DPS: the report is administrative prima facie proof for automatic revocation, not an affidavit resolving constitutional legality. | The report establishes a prima facie case for revocation; it does not decide constitutionality or probable cause for arrest. |
| Alleged re‑arrest / Probable cause for arrest by Stevenson | Martinez: Stevenson re‑arrested him without probable cause, so consent/test authority invalid. | DPS: Branham had probable cause and Martinez remained in custody; statutory implied consent attached to the valid arrest and transfers between officers do not negate it. | No second arrest was necessary; Branham’s arrest gave implied consent and Stevenson lawfully administered the test. |
| Two‑hour rule for admissibility of breath test | Martinez: breath test was not within two hours of initial arrest, so inadmissible. | DPS: timing objection was not raised in district court; appellate review limited to issues preserved below. | Timing issue waived for appellate review; court declined to consider it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chase v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 795 P.2d 1048 (Okla. 1990) (sworn report is statutory prerequisite to revocation and facial defects can invalidate revocation)
- Hollis v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 131 P.3d 145 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (standard of review for implied consent revocation appeals)
- Clawson v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 168 P.3d 258 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007) (earlier Division I statement that §754(C) requires arresting officer’s sworn report)
- White v. Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety, 606 P.2d 1131 (Okla. 1980) (valid arrest necessary to invoke implied consent test authority)
- Graves v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 541 P.2d 1326 (Okla. 1975) (public offense observed by arresting officer supports legality of arrest)
- Cudjoe v. State, 521 P.2d 409 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974) (examples of actual physical control findings)