Miller v. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration
2012 Ark. 165
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Appellant Miller challenges the circuit court’s order affirming the suspension of his driving privileges following a DWI arrest.
- Miller’s CDL was suspended for one year and non-commercial license for six months, with a restricted Class D license potentially available.
- An administrative hearing upheld the suspensions; Miller sought a de novo review in circuit court and requested a stay during appeal.
- Miller argued Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-402 is unconstitutional as applied, citing due process concerns and perceived bias of the hearing officer.
- The circuit court later stayed nothing initially, held a hearing, and eventually concluded Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-402 was not unconstitutional as applied.
- This appeal reviews only the statute as applied, not facial validity, and applies a de novo standard to constitutional questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 5-65-402 is unconstitutional as applied | Miller contends the statute violates due process as applied. | Gunter's view is that the statute provides adequate due process and de novo review cures defects. | Not unconstitutional as applied. |
| Whether the hearing provided adequate due process under Mathews v. Eldridge | Hearing officer relied solely on the officer’s sworn report, denying a meaningful hearing. | De novo review after the administrative hearing suffices for due process. | Due process satisfied; pre-deprivation hearing was adequate with post-deprivation review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1971) (license is a protected interest; due process prior to deprivation)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor test for due process in deprivations)
- Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 (U.S. 1977) (summary suspension with post-deprivation review satisfies due process)
- Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1979) (predeprivation hearing not always required; prompt post-deprivation review acceptable)
- Sweeney, 257 A.2d 764 (Del. Super. Ct. 1969) (insufficient hearing when prosecutor’s report stands without testimony)
- Javed v. Department of Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles, 921 P.2d 620 (Alaska 1996) (meaningful hearing concepts under state constitution; presence of evidence and witnesses)
- Thomas v. Fiedler, 700 F. Supp. 1527 (E.D. Wis. 1988) (state procedures with restricted evidence can be unconstitutional without timely post-review)
- Kempke v. Kansas Department of Revenue, 281 Kan. 770, 138 P.3d 104 (2006) (de novo hearing cures potential defects; stay considerations)