NICHOLS v. STATE ex. rel. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 2017 OK 20

Nichols was arrested for DUI on May 8, 2013 and requested an administrative hearing on May 20, 2013.
OSBI reported blood test results on September 6, 2013 showing Nichols was under the influence at arrest.
The Department did not issue notice of revocation until January 18, 2014, four months after receiving the test results.
A revocation hearing was held on September 16, 2014, more than a year after the arrest and months after notice.
Nichols challenged the delay as a violation of Okla. Const. art. II, § 6, arguing a speedy hearing right was violated; the trial court vacated the revocation, CA reversed, and certiorari was granted.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held Nichols’s right to a speedy hearing was violated and reinstated his driving privileges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the delay in holding the revocation hearing violate the right to a speedy hearing?	Nichols contends the 16-month delay violated the speedy hearing right.	State argues delays were permissible due to notice timing and budgetary constraints.	Yes; the delay violated the speedy hearing right.

Pierce v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 327 P.3d 530 (2014 OK) (establishes standard and factors for speedy hearing in revocation proceedings)
Bosh v. Cherokee County Governmental Building Authority, 305 P.3d 994 (2013 OK) (constitutional supremacy of Oklahoma text in applicable cases)
Turner v. City of Lawton, 733 P.2d 375 (1986 OK) (OK constitutional alignment with federal principles)
Wester v. Lucas, 154 P.2d 1170 (1916 OK) (early enumerations of speedy remedy principles)
Ellis v. State, 76 P.3d 1131 (2003 OK CR) (court-recognized factors in evaluating delays)
Dept. of Securities ex rel. Faught v. Wilcox, 267 P.3d 106 (2011 OK) (judicial notice and reliance on statutory timing amidst due process)