Summary 2007 WY 38

Summary of Decision issued March 8, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance with a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Escarcega v. State, ex rel. Wyoming DOT

Citation: 2007 WY 38

Docket Number: 06-58

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): R. Michael Vang of Brown & Hiser LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas Moench, Senior Attorney General; and Dana J. Lent, Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether the OAH and district court erred in upholding a CDL disqualification for refusal to submit to chemical testing in the course of an arrest for DWUI where the holder of the CDL was arrested while driving a non-commercial motor vehicle, and where the arresting officer recited the statutory implied-consent warning mandated for use during the stop if a non-commercial vehicle, but where the officer did not recite the statutory implied-consent warning for use during the stop of a commercial vehicle.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant’s driver’s license was suspended for six months under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-107 and Appellant was disqualified from operating a commercial vehicle for one year pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-7-305 because he refused to submit to chemical testing after being arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol while operating a non-commercial vehicle.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews the final judgment of a district court regarding action taken by an administrative agency under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-115. They review as though the appeal was received directly from the agency giving no special preference to the findings of the district court and they apply the same standard of review used by district courts under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114. The Court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo.
Wyoming’s Implied Consent Law: Wyoming law provides that every driver on Wyoming roads is deemed to have consented to chemical testing in the course of an arrest for DWUI. The implied consent statute requires that an arresting officer warn the arrestee that refusal to submit to chemical tests will result in loss of driving privileges for six months. The parties do not contest Appellant’s entitlement to the non-commercial implied consent warnings or that the arresting officer gave Appellant those warnings. Appellant argues the officer was also required to warn him of the consequences to his CDL. He claims the warning contained in § 31-7-307 must be given before the state can disqualify a driver’s CDL for one year. The implied consent and commercial license statutes interact with one another on several levels but are separate. Appellant was not driving or in control of a commercial motor vehicle when he was stopped and arrested for DWUI therefore he was not entitled to the warning contained in § 31-7-307 which applies only to drivers arrested for DWUI while driving a commercial motor vehicle.
The Court reviewed their interpretations of the Wyoming implied consent laws and the statutory warnings in State v. Chastain, Nesius v. State Dep’t of Revenue and Taxation and State v. Marquez. They stated the Legislature has mandated specific warnings to all drivers that there are consequences to their non-commercial driver’s license for refusing to submit to chemical testing subsequent to an arrest for DWUI. They did not choose to require the commercial vehicle warning during the stop of a non-commercial vehicle. The implied consent law was intended as a complement to the DWUI statute and was designed to facilitate tests for intoxication, not to inhibit the ability of the state to keep drunk drivers off the road. Merely by choosing to drive on the roads of Wyoming a driver agrees to submit to chemical testing in the event of his arrest for DWUI. Appellant was given the precise warning required by the applicable statutes for a driver stopped in a non-commercial vehicle.
Due Process of Law: Appellant attempted to raise the issue of due process. The Court held in Reidel v. Anderson that an administrative agency lacks authority to determine the constitutionality of a statute. The proper vehicle for such an argument is a declaratory judgment brought under W.R.A.P. 12.12. The Court therefore did not address the argument on the subject or the State’s response to that argument.

Holding: The Court stated there is no statutory requirement that an officer read the statutory implied consent warning for the stop of a commercial vehicle to the driver of a non-commercial vehicle when requesting a specimen for chemical testing pursuant to a DWUI arrest. The OAH and the district court properly upheld the suspension of Appellant’s driver license as well as the disqualification of his CDL.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2n5o5t .