NICHOLS v. STATE ex. rel. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2017 OK 20
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Nichols was arrested for DUI on May 8, 2013, submitted to a blood test, and requested an administrative revocation hearing on May 20, 2013.
- OSBI delivered blood-test results to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) on September 6, 2013, showing Nichols was impaired.
- DPS did not issue a notice of revocation until January 18, 2014, and held the administrative hearing on September 16, 2014 — about 16 months after Nichols’ first hearing request.
- Nichols did not contest the arrest or test results; his sole claim was a constitutional violation of the right to a speedy hearing under Okla. Const. art. 2, § 6.
- The trial court found a speedy-trial violation, reinstated Nichols’ driving privileges; the Court of Civil Appeals reversed; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Court applied the four-factor Pierce test (length of delay; reason for delay; assertion of right; prejudice) and concluded DPS violated Nichols’ speedy-hearing right, ordering reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DPS violated the Oklahoma constitutional right to a speedy hearing for administrative license revocation | Nichols argued DPS unreasonably delayed (16 months from first request; 12 months after receiving lab results) and thus violated art. 2, § 6 | DPS argued the controlling start date should be the later statutory notice dates (Jan 18 or Feb 17, 2014) and that budget/personnel constraints justified delay | Held for Nichols: start date is his May 20, 2013 request; the 16‑month delay (12 months after DPS had lab results) was unreasonable and violated the speedy-hearing right |
| Whether DPS may treat a pre-notice hearing request as "premature" under 47 O.S. § 754(D) to avoid speedy-hearing analysis | Nichols contended DPS could not ignore his timely request to manipulate the calculation of delay | DPS argued the May 2013 request was premature and not a proper trigger under § 754(D) | Held for Nichols: DPS had treated the May 20, 2013 request as a valid notice at trial; DPS may not delay issuing revocation notice to control the speedy-hearing start date |
| Whether budgetary or personnel shortages excuse the delay | Nichols argued such administrative excuses do not justify constitutional delay | DPS relied on funding and personnel constraints as justificatory reasons | Held for Nichols: budget/personnel constraints are insufficient to excuse prolonged delay absent extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether Nichols suffered prejudice from the delay sufficient to satisfy the Pierce test | Nichols argued prejudice existed because his driving privileges were in limbo for 16 months and statutory/public interests in timely revocation were frustrated | DPS argued no actual suspension occurred, so prejudice is minimal | Held for Nichols: the uncertainty and deprivation of the driving-interest sufficed as prejudice under the four-factor test |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 327 P.3d 530 (Okla. 2014) (establishes four-factor test and instructs that budget/personnel constraints generally do not excuse delay)
- Ellis v. State, 76 P.3d 1131 (Okla. Crim. App. 2003) (addressing prejudice factor in speedy-trial analysis)
- Wester v. Lucas, 57 P.2d 1179 (Okla. 1936) (attorney statements in court may constitute admissions)
- Jernigan v. Jernigan, 138 P.3d 539 (Okla. 2006) (issues raised for first time on appeal are generally not reviewable)