State v. Hooley
2012 OK CR 3
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Appellee was charged with misdemeanor DUI in Oklahoma County after license revocation by DPS.
- DPS revoked Pope Hooley's license; she appealed in district court, which ruled her stop/seizure unconstitutional.
- She moved to suppress in the misdemeanor case arguing collateral estoppel prevented relitigation of the seizure issue.
- DA stipulated the DPS hearing addressed an identical issue and that issue was finally adjudicated on its merits, but argued lack of privity and fair opportunity.
- District Court granted suppression under collateral estoppel; State appealed.
- Court held collateral estoppel did not apply; DPS and District Attorney were not the same party or in privity, and DA lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate; case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars re-litigation of seizure legality. | Pope Hooley argues issue identical and final on merits. | DA alleges lack of privity and fair opportunity to litigate. | Collateral estoppel inapplicable. |
| Whether DPS and DA are the same party or in privity for collateral estoppel. | N/A (not applicable for appellant's view) | DPS and DA are not the same party and not in privity. | Not in privity; not the same party. |
| Whether the DA had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the seizure issue at license revocation proceedings. | N/A | DA did not have a full and fair opportunity at the DPS license hearing. | No full and fair opportunity to litigate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 46 P.3d 136 (2002 OK CR 2) (collateral estoppel in criminal cases; four-element test for applicability)
- Price v. Reed, 725 P.2d 1254 (1986 OK 43) (different burdens and purposes in license revocation vs. criminal prosecution)
- Brabson, 976 S.W.2d 182 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (privity issue and collateral estoppel in administrative vs. criminal proceedings)
- Briggs v. State, Dept. of Public Safety, 732 P.2d 1078 (Alaska 1987) (state agency collateral estoppel; agency representation considerations)
- Elliott v. State, 247 P.3d 501 (2011 WY 32) (privity between agencies for collateral estoppel varies by jurisdiction)
- Summers v. State, 351 N.C. 620 (2000 NC 2000) (privity determined by state interests; in some cases privity found between state offices)