A CDL holder refused a chemical sobriety test following a traffic stop for high-intensity LED vehicle lights. The trial court ruled the stop unconstitutional and ordered reinstatement of his CDL. The Third Circuit reversed, finding reasonable suspicion for the stop and mandatory CDL disqualification for refusal under state and federal law. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed: it clarified that mixed questions of fact and law must be reviewed under the manifest error standard and that the trooper’s traffic stop was justified. The CDL disqualification was therefore legally correct and reinstated.
CDL holder charged with first-offense DWI sought to suppress breathalyzer results because the officer failed to read the CDL-specific penalties on the rights form. The court held the omission was de minimis and affirmed denial of suppression. Affirmed.
Kunow, a CDL holder, was arrested for DUI with a BAC of 0.167%. His personal license was suspended for 90 days, and his CDL was disqualified for one year. The court upheld both actions, ruling that a CDL can be disqualified even when the offense occurs in a non-commercial vehicle and that seeking judicial review doesn’t prevent suspension or disqualification.
Driver appealed CDL disqualification and license suspension after refusing a chemical test. The court upheld the administrative ruling, finding the refusal valid and the penalties appropriate. Judgment affirmed.
Motorist whose commercial drivers’ license (CDL) was disqualified for one year based on his refusal to take a breath test after being arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) filed application after reinstatement of his CDL to have the notation of refusal to take a test stricken from his driving record. The Twenty–Seventh Judicial District Court, St. Landry Parish, No. 12-C-5293-B, granted the application. Department of Public Safety appealed. The Court of Appeal held that: [1] motorist was not entitled to have the notation stricken, and [2] trial court should not have considered motorist’s argument that disqualification statute did not provide sufficient notice of the length of notification. Reversed.
Licensee filed a petition to review the suspension of his driver’s license. The Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, No. 2011-005080-B, reinstated licensee’s commercial driver’s license. The Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles (OMV), appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court committed reversible error when it reinstated licensee’s commercial driver’s license after the operating a vehicle while intoxicated charge against licensee was dismissed. Reversed.
The State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles (OMV), sought review of a district court judgment ordering it to reinstate Dennis Griffin, Jr.’s commercial driver’s license. Affirmed.
Motorist petitioned for judicial review of decision by Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles, to suspend his driving privileges after he was arrested for operating motor vehicle while under influence of alcohol. The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Evangeline, No. 73460-A, ordered reinstatement of driving privileges, and Department appealed. The Court of Appeal held that: [1] motorist whose driving privileges were suspended following arrest for operating vehicle while under influence was entitled to reinstatement of privileges after district attorney declined to pursue criminal charges, and [2] hearing officer’s determination that “Department met its burden of proving the statutory requirements of the Louisiana Tests for Suspected Drunken Drivers law” was not “conviction,” within meaning of statute governing suspension of driver’s licenses upon conviction for operating motor vehicle while under influence of alcohol. Affirmed.
Licensee filed a motion that sought to prohibit the Office of Motor Vehicles (OMV) from denying him a commercial driver’s license with hazardous material endorsement (HME). The Forty–Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of DeSoto, No. 72,808, granted the motion. The OMV appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the OMV acted unreasonably in waiting approximately two years after licensee was sentenced for driving while intoxicated (DWI) to suspend his commercial driver’s license. Affirmed.
After driver’s refusal to submit to test for chemical intoxication, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety, Office of Motor Vehicles (OMV), suspended his commercial driving privileges, and driver sought to reinstate the commercial license following acquittal on the driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge. The Second Judicial District Court, Bienville Parish, No. 41807, ordered the OMV to reinstate the commercial driver’s license. The OMV appealed. The Court of Appeal held that a commercial driver’s license suspended for refusal to test could not be reinstated due to acquittal on DWI charge. Reversed.
Commercial driver licensee sought judicial review of his adjudication, and reinstatement of driver’s license. The Twenty–Seventh Judicial District Court, St. Landry Parish, No. 10-C-3450-A, ordered state to reinstate licensee’s commercial driver’s license, and state appealed. The Court of Appea held that: [1] state was required to immediately reinstate licensee’s commercial driver’s license, once prosecutor dismissed the charges of operating a vehicle while intoxicated; [2] licensee’s commercial driver’s license was not subject to suspension in accordance with federal regulation that included convictions for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated; and [3] “implied consent” statute was insufficient to support state’s refusal to reinstate licensee’s commercial driver’s license. Affirmed.
Motorist filed application for trial de novo after his driver’s license was suspended by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) pursuant to the “Tests for Suspected Drunken Drivers” law, based on motorist’s refusal to submit to a chemical test of his breath. The Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides, No. 237,873, reversed. Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPS) appealed. The Court of Appeal held that as a matter of first impression, once motorist refused to submit to breath test as directed by arresting officer, driver’s license suspension statute became applicable, notwithstanding the motorist’s subsequent submission to the blood test. Reversed.
Driver filed petition to challenge suspension of his commercial driver’s license by Department of Public Safety and Corrections. The Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides, affirmed suspension. Driver appealed. The Court of Appeal, held that relevant period in statute providing for suspension of commercial driver’s license for two serious traffic violations within three-year period is time between occurrence of violations, rather than time between convictions for such violations.
Following suspension of motorist’s commercial Class A driver’s license for driving with excessive blood alcohol content, the Fourth Judicial District Court, Ouachita Parish, granted motorist hardship license to drive commercial vehicles, and Department of Public Safety and Corrections appealed. The Court of Appeal, held that trial court did not have authority to grant motorist hardship license for commercial vehicles while prohibiting his driving private vehicles or any vehicle for his personal use.
LA Rev Stat § 32:414.2 A.(1)( d) – Commercial motor vehicle drivers and drivers with a commercial learner’s permit; disqualification; issuance of Class “D” or “E” license; alcohol content in breath and blood; implied consent
