Petitioner appeals a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing revoking petitioner’s commercial driver’s license after petitioner was arrested for a DUI. After DMV initially revoked petitioner’s commercial driver’s license, petitioner initially appealed to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County where the circuit Court remanded back to DMV for more fact finding. The Supreme Court of Appeals held that, because the DMV remand was still open regarding findings of fact, the case at hand was premature as the DMV has not issued a final order regarding petitioner’s commercial driver’s license status.
Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) appeals a circuit order reversing an office of administrative hearings (OAH) decision revoking respondent’s commercial driver’s license after being arrested for DUI. The circuit court initially reversed the OAH decision because the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest respondent with DUI. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the decision and held that the circuit court did not err in finding a lack of probable cause to arrest respondent for a DUI.
Petitioner appeals an Office of Administrative Hearing revoking petitioner’s driver’s license after petitioner alleged he was unduly prejudiced by a 4 year delay in the OAH issuing an order. Petitioner had obtained a commercial driver’s license during the OAH delay where petitioner retired from his accounting job and became a state bus driver. The Supreme Court of Appeals determined that the petitioner would not have retired and changed his employment if OAH had issued a timely decision and therefore petitioner has suffered undue prejudice.
The West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) appeals a circuit court decision reversing an Office of Administrative Hearing order revoking respondent driver’s license after respondent alleged he was unduly prejudiced by a 2 year delay in the OAH issuing an order. The circuit court reversed the OAH decision finding that a two year delay unduly prejudiced petitioner.the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court decision because, unlike in Staffileno, respondent has not actually alleged some type of detrimental change in his circumstances, related to the delay in OAH issuing its final order. Specifically, respondent failed to show that he actively sought and failed to find other employment due to the incapability of utilizing his commercial driver’s license.
Petitioner appeals the order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, reversing the administrative reinstatement of his commercial driver’s license after it was revoked by the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) due to a DUI arrest. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reversed the DMV’s revocation, explaining that petitioner was denied the right to present potentially exculpatory evidence of his blood test results and was therefore denied his statutory and due process rights.
Motorist appealed decision of Commissioner of Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that revoked driver’s license following motorist’s arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The Circuit Court, Marion County, reversed Commissioner’s decision. Commissioner appealed. The Supreme Court of Appeals held that: [1] trial court was required to determine whether arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that motorist had been driving his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; [2] officer had reasonable grounds to believe that motorist had been driving while under the influence; and [3] hearing examiner did not shift burden of proof to motorist. Reversed.
Motorist requested an administrative hearing on initial order by Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoking his driver’s license. Following the hearing, the Commissioner of the DMV reinstated the initial revocation by final order, and motorist appealed. The Circuit Court of Marshall County, reversed, and Commissioner appealed. The Supreme Court of Appeals held that: [1] evidence was sufficient to warrant administrative revocation of motorist’s driver’s license, with or without the results of alcohol breath test, and [2] it was not necessary for officer to actually observe motorist operating vehicle in order to arrest him for driving under the influence. Circuit Court reversed.
Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) appealed from orders of the Circuit Court, Harrison County, modifying, in two cases, the terms of an administrative driver’s license revocation order for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The Supreme Court of Appeals held that: [1] administrative revocation of motorists’ licenses to drive, by DMV, for enhanced period upon motorists’ conviction for DUI, which enhancement was based on motorist having previously pled nolo contendere to another DUI charge, did not involve retroactive application of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeals in State ex rel. Stump v. Johnson and State ex rel. Baker v. Bolyard, which decisions held that a nolo contendere plea to DUI constituted a conviction for license revocation purposes, and [2] the license revocations did not violate due process. Reversed.
Motorists, who had pled nolo contendere to driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), had their driver’s licenses revoked without an administrative hearing, on basis that their pleas constituted “convictions,” such that they were not entitled to an administrative hearing. Motorist filed petition for appeal, and other motorist sought writ of prohibition. The Circuit Court, Kanawha County, granted relief to motorist in form of writ of certiorari. The Court granted relief to other motorist in form of writ of prohibition. Commissioner appealed. The Supreme Court of Appeals held that motorists’ pleas of nolo contendere were not “convictions” for license revocation purposes. Orders affirmed.
Driver sought writ of prohibition, challenging decision of Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) designating his out-of-state conviction for a moving violation as a hazardous driving offense. The Circuit Court, Kanawha County, Louis H. Bloom, J., denied petition. Driver appealed. The Supreme Court of Appeals held that driver’s Virginia conviction for “improper driving” was properly designated as the offense of “hazardous driving” under West Virginia law. Affirmed.
Motorist appealed from order by commissioner of motor vehicles that revoked motorist’s license following an arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Action was remanded for compliance with governing case law. On remand, commissioner entered “final remand order” that reaffirmed the revocation. Motorist appealed. The Circuit Court, Nicholas County, reversed commissioner’s order and reinstated motorist’s license and driving privileges. Commissioner appealed. The Supreme Court of Appeals held that: [1] relevant statute allows the admission of evidence of a chemical analysis performed on a specimen that was collected within two hours of either the acts alleged or the time of the arrest, in prosecution for DUI or in other proceedings arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while driving in that condition; [2] commissioner’s “remand final order” contained proper analysis of the conflicting testimony of motorist and arresting officer; [3] commissioner was correct in not giving substantial weight to dismissal of charges against motorist in related DUI prosecution pursuant to a plea agreement; and [4] no adverse inference arose in administrative proceeding from arresting officer’s failure to introduce videotape of motorist at site where motorist allegedly provided a breath sample. Order of circuit court reversed and case remanded.
Commissioner of Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) appealed from the order of the Circuit Court, Marshall County, reversing Commissioner’s administrative order revoking motorist’s license to operate a motor vehicle following motorist’s arrest for driving under the influence of an intoxicating substance (DUI). The Supreme Court of Appeals held that: [1] certain requirements must be satisfied, for an encounter to come within the community caretaker doctrine exception to the warrant requirement; [2] trooper’s encounter with motorist was a seizure; [3] trooper’s initial encounter with motorist was within community caretaker exception; and [4] after trooper was assured that motorist was not in actual need of emergency aid, trooper had reasonable suspicion for investigatory detention of motorist. Circuit Court reversed; remanded.
Driver petitioned for judicial review of Division of Motor Vehicles’ order revoking driver’s license due to her plea of nolo contendere to second-offense driving under the influence (DUI). Division filed motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Circuit Court, Marion County, refused to dismiss the action and ultimately reversed the revocation of driver’s license. Division appealed. The Supreme Court of Appeals held that driver’s petition for judicial review of license revocation was effectively in the nature of a request for extraordinary relief, and thus it had to be brought in Kanawha County. Reversed.
No additional resources for West Virginia at this time.
