219 N.E.2d 311 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1966
Appellants revoked the driver license of appellee by letter dated May 22, 1964, for five traffic law convictions occurring within a two-year period, pursuant to Section
Section
Appellee requested an administrative hearing pursuant to Section
On October 22, 1964, the Registrar sustained the previous order revoking appellee's driver license, and appellee appealed to the Common Pleas Court pursuant to Section
Appellee did not cross-appeal the holding of the trial court that the traffic law convictions which occurred before the effective date of Section
The trial court held that there was some ambiguity in the intention of the Legislature in the application of these statutes to a situation that is presented in this case, and it resolved this ambiguity in favor of appellee. *167
The pertinent part of Section
"The registrar of motor vehicles shall revoke the * * * probationary operator's license * * * issued to any person when such person has, before reaching his twenty-first birthday, been convicted of or pleaded guilty to in any court of competent jurisdiction, * * * having committed three separate violations in any two-year period * * *."
Section
"`Operator's License' means the license issued to any person to operate a motor vehicle * * * including `probationary license' * * *.
"`Probationary license' means the license issued to any person between sixteen and twenty-one years of age to operate a motor vehicle."
On the date that appellee was issued an operator's license, the analogous portion of Section
"`Operator's License' means the license issued to any person to operate a motor vehicle * * * including `Junior Probationary License' * * *.
"`Junior Probationary License' means the license issued to any person between sixteen and eighteen years of age to operate a motor vehicle."
Section
"* * * No operator's license shall be issued to any person under twenty-one years of age, except a probationary license which may be issued to a person over sixteen years of age * * *."
It is well settled that a license to operate a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a property right. Smith v. Hayes, 73 Ohio Law. Abs. 33; Paduchik v. Mikoff, 64 Ohio Law. Abs. 150.
In Sleeper v. Woodmansee,
"* * * The operator's license does not confer a vested right. The license is a mere privilege to drive a motor vehicle, which is subject to revocation for the reasons and in the manner provided *168 by law. Both the regulation of a motor vehicle driver and the liability for violation thereof are subject to the changes of the law. * * *."
It is clear that the Legislature could change the law on issuing driver licenses, and it is equally clear that if appellee had been issued a probationary license after September 27, 1963, Section
Section
We hold that the issuance of a driver license conveys no greater authority than the statute or statutes authorizing the issuance of such license. When such statute or statutes authorizing the issuance of a driver license are amended, the effect would be to also amend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle as evidenced by a driver license.
We hold that Sections
The order of the Registrar of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles revoking the driver's license of appellee is sustained.
Judgment reversed.
JOHNSON, P. J., and JONES, J., concur. *169