Date: 06-23-2014

Case Style: Jerry M. Lee v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department of Public Safety

Case Number: CV-2014-444

Judge: Deborrah Ludi-Leitch

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Robert Scott Denton

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Jerry M. Lee v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department of Public Safety

Issue # 1.
Issue: APPLICATION RE: REVOCATION OF DRIVERS LICENSE (APPLDL)
Filed by: LEE, JERRY M
Filed Date: 04/21/2014
Party Name: Disposition Information:

Defendant: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Disposed: FINAL ORDER, 06/23/2014. Judge.

1. That Plaintiff is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, and Defendant is an agency of the State of Oklahoma.
2. On July 5, 2013, the Plaintiff was served with an “Officer’s Affidavit and Notice of Revocation/Disqualification”. Said paperwork was received by Oklahoma Department of Public Safety Legal Division on July 10, 2013. See, Exhibit A.
3. Plaintiff, through counsel, made a timely written request to the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety for an administrative hearing on the pending revocation of his driving privileges.
4, Defendant scheduled an initial administrative hearing. This hearing was cancelled when the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals ruled in cases #112,006 and #111,960 (See, Roulsien v. Department of Public Safety, COCA #112,006, and Tucker v. Department of Public Safety, COCA #111,960, both released for publication October 9, 2013), that the same type of “Officer’s Affidavit and Notice of RevocationfDisqualification” that was used in the current Plaintiff’s ease, was facially invalid and could not support a revocation.
5. Defendant then drafted and procured via exparte communication with a witness, what Defendant has titled the “SUPPLEMENTAL SWORN REPORT TO THE OFFICER’S AFFIDAVIT AND NOTICE OF REVOCATION/DISQUALIFICATION”. See, Exhibit B.
6. Upon receipt of the “SUPPLEMENTAL SWORN REPORT TO THE OFFICER’S AFFIDAVIT AND NOTICE OF REVOCATION/DISQUALIFICATION” the
Defendant reset the Administrative hearing for February 24, 2014, nearly eight months after the initial “Officer’s Affidavit and Notice of Revocation/Disqualification” was delivered to the Plaintiff. See, Exhibit C.
7. That Defendant has issued an Order of Revocation of the driver’s license of the Plaintiff which becomes effective on April 27, 2014. That said Revocation and Disqualification is for a period of at least One Hundred and Eighty (180) days. See, Exhibit D. This appeal is an appeal of the above mentioned revocation and/or disqualification and all other current or outstanding revocations and/or Disqualifications of the Driver’s License or Commercial Driver’s License of Plaintiff by Defendant.
8. Plaintiff contests the basis for the suspicions and requests a hearing on the merits.
9. That said revocation and/or Disqualification is done without notice to the Plaintiff and is fi.trther an arbitrary, frivolous, and capricious act of the agency performed without justification or reasonable basis in an administrative proceeding that utterly fails to provide due process of law protections to which Plaintiff has a guaranteed Constitutional right. Therefore said revocation should be vacated, set aside, and held for naught.
10. That even if said revocation and/or Disqualification is justified, said revocation and/or Disqualification is for a longer period of time than is justified considering the facts and circumstances currently existent, and said licensee is entitled to have said revocation and/or Disqualification modified to allow Plaintiff to drive a motor vehicle during the course of his employment and to and from his places of employment and for other purposes, as the imposition of a revocation would cause an extreme and unusual hardship upon Plaintiffs ability to earn a livelihood, and his ability to function and perform the things necessary to provide for himself and family, and Plaintiff has no other adequate means of transportation.
11. Plaintiff moves the Court that upon trial of this matter to make its findings in the form of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
12. That said revocation and/or Disqualification violates Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights under both the Oklahoma Constitution and the United States Constitution.
13. That the Statute under which the Department seeks to deny the modification of the revocation of the Drivers license of Plaintiff is invalid as its enactment was done in violation of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.
14. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter, as Plaintiff timely submitted a written request for an Administrative Hearing to the Department of Public Safety, Plaintiff actually exercised the opportunity to appear, and the Department of Public Safety has entered an Order sustaining the revocation. A copy of said Order is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.’
15. That venue is proper in Tulsa County pursuant to 47 O.S. § 6-211(C) as the alleged offence was committed in Tulsa County.

Outcome: 1) Pursuant to 47 O.S. §6-21 1(1), the revocation of Plaintiffs driver’s license stemming from the arrest of Plaintiff on July 05, 2013, is set aside.
2) That Defendant shall not refile any implied consent action against Plaintiff stemming from the arrest listed in item (1) above.
3) That any supersedeas bond posted in this case shall be exonerated and any previous order of this court relating to Plaintiffs driving privileges is vacated upon the filing of this Order.
4) That each part is responsible for its own attorney fees.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: