NICHOLS v. STATE ex. rel. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2017 OK 20
Okla.2017Background
- Nathan D. Nichols was arrested for DUI on May 8, 2013, and requested an administrative hearing on May 20, 2013.
- OSBI provided blood-test results to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) on September 6, 2013, confirming impairment.
- DPS did not issue a notice of revocation until January 18, 2014, and the administrative hearing was not held until September 16, 2014 (about 16 months after Nichols’ first hearing request).
- Nichols appealed the revocation on speedy-trial grounds under Okla. Const. art. 2, § 6; the trial court set aside the revocation, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Supreme Court applied the four-factor Pierce framework (length of delay; reason for delay; assertion of the right; prejudice) and found the Department’s unexplained 12-month delay after receiving lab results violated Nichols’ right to a speedy hearing.
- The Court ordered reinstatement of Nichols’ driving privileges and issued timing guidance for DPS notice and hearings to avoid future constitutional violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 16‑month delay between Nichols' first hearing request and the administrative hearing violated the Oklahoma constitutional right to a speedy trial | Nichols: the delay (16 months from May 20, 2013) violated art. 2, § 6; DPS had lab results by Sept. 6, 2013 and could have proceeded sooner | DPS: the May 2013 request was "premature" under 47 O.S. § 754(D); speedy‑trial calculation should run from later notices (Jan/Feb 2014); budget/personnel issues justified delay | Held for Nichols: DPS violated the speedy‑hearing right; the initial May 20, 2013 request controls and DPS’s delay after receiving lab results is unjustified; reinstatement ordered |
| Whether DPS may rely on statuteally framed notice timing to avoid speedy‑trial claims when it delays issuing revocation notice while possessing necessary evidence | Nichols: DPS may not manipulate issuance of notice to defeat speedy‑hearing claims once it possesses the evidence needed to proceed | DPS: statutory scheme permits treating early/hearing requests as premature; thus the agency’s timing controls calculation | Held: DPS cannot artificially delay notice to reset the speedy‑trial clock when it already has the evidence and the officer is available |
| Whether budgetary and personnel constraints excuse the delay | Nichols: constraints do not excuse constitutional violation | DPS: budget and staffing justify scheduling delays | Held: personnel/budget constraints are insufficient to justify the prolonged delay under Pierce |
| Whether Nichols suffered sufficient prejudice to satisfy the Pierce test | Nichols: prejudice shown by prolonged uncertainty of driving privileges and regulatory objectives thwarted | DPS: no actual suspension occurred, so no meaningful prejudice | Held: prejudice established — prolonged limbo over property interest (driving privileges) suffices under the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 327 P.3d 530 (Okla. 2014) (controlling four‑factor speedy‑hearing framework and holding budget/personnel limits insufficient excuse)
- Ellis v. State, 76 P.3d 1131 (Okla. Crim. 2003) (prejudice and speedy‑trial analysis cited)
- Dept. of Securities ex rel. Faught v. Wilcox, 267 P.3d 106 (Okla. 2011) (issues-preservation on appeal — issues raised first on appeal generally not reviewed)
- Jernigan v. Jernigan, 138 P.3d 539 (Okla. 2006) (procedural waiver and appellate review principles)
- Bosh v. Cherokee County Bldg. Auth., 305 P.3d 994 (Okla. 2013) (Oklahoma Constitution as supreme state law when not in conflict with federal law)