Summary 2011 WY 1

Summary of Decision January 4, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

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

Case Name: Bowen v. Wyo. Dep’t of Transp.

Citation: 2011 WY 1

Docket Number: S-10-0063

URL: http://tinyurl.com/22p97rn

Appeal from the District Court of Goshen County, The Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): James A. Eddington of Jones & Eddington Law Offices, Torrington, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jackson M. Engels, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: January 4, 2011

Facts: Appellant’s drunken driving resulted in both a criminal prosecution for driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233(b) (LexisNexis 2007), and an administrative license suspension proceeding, as mandated by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102 (LexisNexis 2007). In the criminal case, the appellant moved to suppress the breathalyzer evidence, alleging that the trooper performing the test was not properly trained on the device used to administer it. (The trooper used an updated version of the breathalyzer device.) The appellant’s motion was heard and denied by a decision letter dated April, 2009. The appellant entered a conditional guilty plea and Judgment and Sentence was entered in June of 2009. At the OAH contested case hearing, the appellant took the same position he had taken in the criminal case: the trooper was not properly trained on the breathalyzer device and thus the suspension was improper. Relying upon the circuit court’s previous finding in the criminal case that the trooper was properly certified to operate the device, the OAH upheld the suspension in their May, 2009 decision. The appellant sought review of both the OAH decision and the Judgment and Sentence in the criminal matter. After briefing by both parties, the district court entered its decision and order on appeal affirming the decisions in both the criminal and administrative proceedings.

Issues: Whether the appellant was collaterally estopped from relitigating the question of the admissibility of his breath test results in his administrative license suspension hearing after the circuit court had already decided that issue against him in a criminal proceeding.

Holdings: Only the administrative appeal was before the Court for review. The OAH’s determination was affirmed. The issue raised in the appeal was one of first impression for the Court. The Court was unable to find authority from any other jurisdiction addressing the particular factual scenario. Nevertheless, the Court found the application of collateral estoppel to these facts to be clear and straightforward: 1) the issue was identical in both proceedings: whether the trooper was properly trained to perform the breath test using the EC/IR II making the breath-test results admissible; 2) the circuit court’s determination that the trooper was properly trained and that the breath test was admissible was a final determination of that issue; 3) the appellant, the party against whom collateral estoppel was asserted, was a party to both proceedings; 4) finally, the prior criminal case afforded the appellant a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Noting the limited nature of their decision in this matter, the Court concluded that the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded the appellant from relitigating the question of whether his breath test results were legally obtained.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.