SD8 - Administrative Revocation of Driver's Licenses
Executive Summary: Introduction A task force comprised of the Department of Motor Vehicles, Commission on Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program, and the Transportation Safety Board was organized in the spring of 1989 to respond to Senate Joint Resolution 172. The resolution requested these agencies to study the issue of administrative revocation as related to driving under the influence. The resolution also required the aforementioned agencies to provide for public hearings. A panel of representatives from each of the following organizations was established to assist the task force with information received during the course of the public hearings. • Department of Motor Vehicles • VASAP Commission • Transportation Safety Board • Office of the Attorney General • Supreme Court (General District Court Judge) • Chiefs of Police • Citizen Activist Group (MADD) Findings The following issues were identified from both written and oral testimony: • Safety • The issue of safety on the highways of Virginia was a major concern identified by all testifying or submitting written comments. The method by which these drivers are removed, however, evoked much controversy and a wide range of remedies. • Deterrence • Many of those testifying or submitting written comments believe administrative license revocation serves not only as a general deterrent to potential drunk/drugged drivers, but also as a specific deterrent to those previously convicted of DUl. However, many felt that in order for this process to be effective, the action must occur immediately and result in a punishment severe enough to discourage drivers from ever driving intoxicated or under the influence of drugs in the first place. • Constitutionality/Due Process • Those opposing the concept believe only a court of law should make the determination of whether or not an accused drunk/drugged driver should lose his license. The issue of "due process" was also a major concern. Those supporting administrative per se believe the question of constitutionality and due process has been answered through previous court cases in which the administrative per se process was upheld. • Police Involvement • Numerous law enforcement agencies responding to the issue of administrative per se support the basic concept of the program, if implemented in a manner that sufficiently addresses several major concerns. One such concern is the additional time that will be required to process paperwork and appear at hearings. They felt as though these requirements will result in a loss of patrol time. • Alcohol/Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation • Many who testified or submitted written comments felt that alcohol/drug treatment and rehabilitation should be incorporated as a major component in the administrative per se process. They felt that the elimination of such would have a detrimental effect on a process designed to focus on the alcohol/drug impaired individual. Considerations and Recommendations Based on the knowledge gained through the public hearings and the analysis of submitted written comments, it is the opinion of the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program, and the Transportation Safety Board task force, that an administrative license revocation program is appropriate for the Commonwealth of Virginia. To achieve an effective program that "best fits Virginia", it is the recommendation of this task force that a committee be established to design an administrative license revocation process for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The committee should consist of the following at a minimum: • One or two General Assembly members representing each house • One representative from each of the following Court levels: - Magistrate - General District - Circuit • Representatives from: - State and Local Police - Department of Motor Vehicles - Attorney General's' Office - Commission on Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program - Local Alcohol Safety Action Program - Citizen Activist Groups The design of the process by the committee should incorporate the following components and examine issues relative to those components. 1. Two-track system (Administrative and Judicial) Administrative In designing an administrative component, the committee should address the following issues: • Who will have the responsibility of issuing the notice of revocation (i.e. police officer, magistrate, DMV official, other)? • Will a temporary license be issued pending the administrative hearing? • When and how will notification of license suspension/revocation be transmitted to DMV, in order to maintain accurate driver license status on the automated system? • When and where will the administrative hearing take place? • What are the criteria for requesting an administrative hearing? • Will the police officer be required to be present at the administrative hearing? • Will the decision of the administrative hearing be subject to appeal? • If a not guilty verdict is rendered at the post-revocation administrative hearing, will the individual who originally revoked the license be liable for civil suit? Judicial The committee should design a process whereby a judicial component remains in place for adjudication of those charged with driving under the influence as a criminal offense. The committee should examine the following issues relevant to the judicial process: • If the license is revoked administratively and the offender is found not guilty when tried under the criminal sanction, will the judicial decision override or cause any consequence to the administrative decision? • Will the results of the administrative hearing be admissible in the judicial proceedings? • If the accused's license is restored at the administrative hearing, is he still required to stand trial on criminal charges? • Will there be an appeal process after a decision is rendered by the General District Court? 2. Training and Public Awareness The committee should examine and incorporate comprehensive training programs and appropriate public awareness efforts. 3. Identification of Resources Based on the design of the program, the committee should examine resources that will be needed to effectively implement the administrative per se process. Implementation It is the recommendation of this task force that the following time frame be followed for implementing the administrative per se program. This time frame allows for program development, training, and public awareness efforts to be accomplished. 1990 General Assembly appoints committee to design administrative per se program and report to 1991 General Assembly; 1991 General Assembly passes administrative per se statute; July, 1991 through December, 1991: Training and public awareness elements occur; January, 1992: Administrative per se statute becomes effective. |
Menu
Published Documents
