Assmann v. State, Dept. of Public Safety, 301 P.3d 3 (2013)

After licensee’s driver’s license was revoked for a period of 36 months, licensee appealed. The Third District Court, Tooele Department, Robert W. Adkins, J., affirmed. Licensee appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: [1] the Driver License Division was not required to produce a copy of the warrant obtained to test licensee’s blood during license revocation proceeding, and [2] substantial evidence supported finding that licensee refused to submit to a chemical test. Affirmed.

Beller v. Rolfe, 194 P.3d 949 (2008)

Motorist’s driver license was suspended by the Utah Driver License Division after he was arrested for driving under influence of alcohol (DUI). Motorist petitioned for review by trial de novo, alleging that his traffic stop was unlawful. The Third District Court, Salt Lake, Tyrone E. Medley, J., determined that the stop was unlawful but ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the license hearing. Motorist and the state appealed. The Supreme Court, Nehring, J., held that the exclusionary rule does not apply to driver license revocation proceedings. Affirmed.

Cousino v. Rolfe, Not Reported in P.3d (2009)

Appellant Nanette Rolfe, Chief of the Driver Control Bureau of the Driver License Division, challenges the district court’s decision reinstating Appellee Curtis Cousino’s driver license, which had been suspended as a result of his refusal to submit to a chemical test. The issue presented in this case is indistinguishable from the issue addressed in Huckins v. Rolfe, 2009 UT App 22. Rolfe moves for summary reversal.

Decker v. Rolfe, 180 P.3d 778 (2008)

Licensee appealed from decision of the Third District Court, Salt Lake Department, Timothy R. Hanson, J., upholding the administrative suspension of his driver’s license for refusing to take a breath test. The Court of Appeals, Bench, J., held that: [1] although licensee allegedly failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, district court still had jurisdiction to review the Driver License Division’s administrative decision; and [2] deputy’s comments that, if deputy, like licensee, was facing a breath test at the sheriff’s office, deputy would not take the test did not legally excuse or vitiate licensee’s refusal to take breath test. Affirmed.

Gilley v. Blackstock, 61 P.3d 305 (2002)

Motorist appealed order of the Third District Court, Tooele Department, David S. Young, J., dismissing her appeal of the Driver License Division’s order to revoke her license. The Court of Appeals, Billings, Associate Presiding Judge, held that motorist’s appeal exceeded the Utah Administrative Procedures Act’s (UAPA) 30 day time limit. Affirmed.

Huckins v. Rolfe, 204 P.3d 186 (2009)

Driver sought review of decision of the Driver Control Bureau of the Driver License Division, Department of Public Safety, suspending his driver license for failure to submit to chemical testing. The Third District Court, Salt Lake Department, Denise P. Lindberg, J., reinstated license. Division appealed. The Court of Appeals, Thorne, Associate P.J., held that driver license reinstatement provisions contained in statute governing license suspensions for impaired driving are not applicable to driver license revocations imposed for failure to submit to chemical testing. Reversed and remanded.

Johansson v. Rolfe, 257 P.3d 1046 (2011)

Motorist appealed administrative suspension of his driver’s license for refusing to take test of blood alcohol levels. After a trial de novo, the Third District Court, Salt Lake Department, Tyrone E. Medley, J., upheld the suspension. Motorist appealed. The Court of Appeals held that motorist’s refusal to take breath test at scene of arrest supported suspension of license. Affirmed.

Miller v. Blackstock, 36 P.3d 525 (2001)

Motorist sought judicial review of Driver License Division’s revocation of his license for failure to submit to a chemical test. After trial de novo, the Third District Court, Salt Lake Department, Ronald E. Nehring, J., revoked license for ten months. Parties appealed. The Court of Appeals, Russell W. Bench, J., held that: (1) license revocation process was not rendered defective by police officer’s failure to provide motorist with a temporary license, and (2) any due process violation that occurred in motorist’s not being given a temporary license would be cured by deducting applicable time from revocation period. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Snedeker v. Rolfe, 176 P.3d 444 (2007)

Defendant, who was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI), challenged initial stop of his vehicle by state trooper. The Second District Court, Ogden Department, Parley R. Baldwin, J., concluded that initial stop was lawful. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Billings, J., held that trooper had reasonable, articulable suspicion that vehicle defendant was driving was uninsured, as would justify stop. Affirmed.

State v. Turner, 283 P.3d 527 (2012)

Following denial of his motion to suppress, defendant pled guilty in the Third District, Salt Lake Department, Vernice Trease, J., to driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). He appealed. The Court of Appeals, McHugh, P.J., held that: [1] trial court’s determination that state trooper’s testimony concerning breath alcohol test machine met threshold reliability requirements was not unreasonable, and [2] defendant’s argument that the admission of the breath alcohol test machine results violated his due process rights was inadequately briefed. Affirmed.

State v. Vialpando, 89 P.3d 209 (2004)

Defendant was convicted in the Third District Court, West Valley Department, Pat B. Brian, J., of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Thorne, J., held that: [1] trooper possessed requisite reasonable articulable suspicion sufficient to justify initial detention of defendant, and [2] trial court’s admission of results of defendant’s alcohol breath test was not an abuse of discretion. Affirmed.