HUGHES, APPELLEE, v. REGISTRAR, OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES, APPELLANT.
No. 96-718
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
July 30, 1997
79 Ohio St.3d 305 | 1997-Ohio-387
Submitted April 1, 1997 | APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-940825.
[Cite as Hughes v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 1997-Ohio-387.]
Motor vehicles—Suspension of driver‘s license—Ohio resident whose driver‘s license has been suspended in Ohio based upon an out-of-state conviction for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol may petition for occupational driving privileges in Ohio—Former
An Ohio resident whose driver‘s license has been suspended in Ohio based upon an out-of-state conviction for driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol may petition for occupational driving privileges in Ohio. Former
__________________
{¶ 1} On January 7, 1994, appellant, Charles Hughes (“Hughes“), was arrested in Kentucky for allegedly violating
{¶ 2} On March 25, 1994, appellant, the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“OBMV“), mailed a notice to Hughes informing him that, pursuant to
{¶ 4} Pursuant to
{¶ 5} On May 25, 1994, pursuant to
{¶ 6} On July 19, 1994, Hughes filed a motion for summary judgment alleging the constitutional infirmity of
{¶ 7} On appeal, the OBMV argued that
{¶ 8} The court of appeals was not persuaded by the OBMV‘s argument. In affirming the trial court‘s finding that
“An Ohio resident who is convicted of DUI in a foreign state which is a member of the Driver‘s License Compact * * * is permitted to petition the trial court for occupational driving privileges under
R.C. 4507.16 because the compact requires that any DUI conviction in a member state be treated as if it occurred in the offender‘s residential state. However, no provision is made underR.C. 4507.169 for an Ohio resident convicted of DUI in a foreign state which is not a member of the Driver‘s License Compact to petition for occupational driving privileges. Kentucky is not a member of the Driver‘s License Compact [R.C. 4507.60 ].
“Appellants [OBMV] have not pointed out any rational basis for treating an Ohio resident convicted of DUI in a non-compact state differently from those Ohio residents convicted of DUI in Ohio or in a Driver‘s License Compact state. * * *” (Footnotes omitted.)
{¶ 9} The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal.
___________________
Lindhorst & Dreidame, Leo Breslin, Brian M. Kneafsey, Jr. and James O‘Connell, for appellee.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and William C. Becker, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
___________________
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J.
{¶ 10} Because Hughes‘s driver‘s license is no longer suspended and the issue of his occupational driving privileges is moot, we must address whether this case presents an issue for our consideration. “Although a case may be moot, a court may hear the appeal where the issues raised are ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.‘” State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Barnes (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 165, 527 N.E.2d 807, paragraph one of the syllabus. Many, if not most, of the driver‘s license suspensions would likely have been completed prior to the date any appeal would have been attempted to this court; thus, we find that this issue could have evaded review. Accordingly, we will consider the equal protection issue raised in this case.
{¶ 11} It is a well-founded principle that statutes are presumed to be constitutional. State ex rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher (1955), 164 Ohio St. 142, 57 O.O. 134, 128 N.E.2d 59. In reviewing a statute, a court, if possible, will uphold its constitutionality. Winslow-Spacarb, Inc. v. Evatt (1945), 144 Ohio St. 471, 475, 30 O.O. 97, 99, 59 N.E.2d 924, 926. All reasonable doubts as to the
{¶ 12} In the case at bar, it is asserted that former
{¶ 13} In order to remedy this difference, courts in similar situations have held that former
{¶ 14} All statutes pertaining to the same general subject matter must be read in pari materia. See Maxfield v. Brooks (1924), 110 Ohio St. 566, 144 N.E. 725. In construing these provisions together, courts must harmonize and give full application to all provisions “unless they are irreconcilable and in hopeless conflict.” Couts v. Rose (1950), 152 Ohio St. 458, 461, 40 O.O. 482, 484, 90 N.E.2d 139, 141. For example, if statute “A,” literally construed, is constitutionally deficient, and is then read in pari materia with a statute “B,” statute “B” may set forth a public policy that would provide a constitutional interpretation of statute “A.” See Kropel v. Conlisk (1975), 60 Ill.2d 17, 25-26, 322 N.E.2d 793, 797-798.
{¶ 15} Former
{¶ 16} The General Assembly has determined that persons convicted in Ohio of DUI, whether an Ohio resident or a nonresident, should be afforded an opportunity to petition for occupational driving privileges. This public policy was expressed in former
“Any person whose driver‘s or commercial driver‘s license or permit or nonresident operating privilege has been suspended pursuant to division (B) or (C)
of this section or pursuant to division (F) of section 4511.191 of the Revised Code may file a petition that alleges that the suspension would seriously affect the person‘s ability to continue his employment. * * * Upon satisfactory proof that there is reasonable cause to believe that the suspension would seriously affect the person‘s ability to continue his employment, the judge * * * may grant the person occupational driving privileges * * *.” 145 Ohio Laws, Part I, 920.
{¶ 17} When an Ohio resident violated a DUI law out of state, he or she was subject to jurisdiction of that state. However, when that person was then subjected to suspension in Ohio pursuant to former
{¶ 18} Therefore, reading
{¶ 19} Accordingly, we hold that former
{¶ 20} In the case at bar, Hughes was convicted of DUI in Kentucky. Subsequently, the OBMV suspended his Ohio driver‘s license. However, Hughes was apparently granted occupational driving privileges and has now served his
Judgment reversed.
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS, J., dissents.
__________________