DHSMV
v.
PELHAM

9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. | 2010-04-30
No. 08-04-1
1 FLCA 1710 Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, Appellate Division (2010)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, Appellate Division, granted in part the Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles' motion for rehearing, finding that the hearing officer was deprived of procedural due process by not being allowed to remand for a determination regarding the lawfulness of a traffic stop. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Pelham decision.


Holding

The court found that the failure to allow remand to the hearing officer to make a determination regarding the lawfulness of the stop deprived the Department of procedural due process. The proper remedy is to remand the case and allow the hearing officer the opportunity to consider the lawfulness of the stop as required by Pelham.


Headnotes

[1] A court's refusal to allow a remand to a hearing officer to determine the lawfulness of an arrest deprives a party of procedural due process.

[2] A case may be remanded for further proceedings when a prior decision was not considered by the hearing officer at the time of the original hearing.

Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“the Court's failure to allow remand to the hearing officer to make a determination regarding the lawfulness of the stop deprived the Department of procedural due process”

Establishes the core legal violation that triggered the remand remedy

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles filed a motion for rehearing in a case involving a traffic stop. The hearing officer had not had the…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING IN PART RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration of the Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles’ Motion for Rehearing, filed on May 10, 2010. The Petitioner did not file a response. The Court finds as follows: On April 30, 2010, the Court entered an order granting Petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari in light of the Fifth District’s decision in Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Pelham, 979 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). The Department seeks rehearing arguing that the Court overlooked the recent case of Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Icaza, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D850a (Fla. 5th DCA April 16, 2010) (court held that the circuit court’s refusal to allow remand to hearing officer to make determination regarding lawfulness of arrest deprived the Department of procedural due process). The Department argues that the instant case and Icaza have identical fact patterns, requiring the Court to remand the present case for further proceedings. Upon reviewing the cited case law, the Court finds that the Court’s failure to allow remand to the hearing officer to make a determination regarding the lawfulness of the stop deprived the Department of procedural due process. In the present case, the hearing officer did not have the benefit of the Pelham decision at the time of the hearing. Thus, based on the reasoning in Icaza, the proper remedy is to remand this case and allow the hearing officer the opportunity to consider the lawfulness of the stop as required by Pelham. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that “Respondent’s Motion for Rehearing” is GRANTED IN PART. This matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Final Order Granting Petition for Writ of Certiorari, entered April 30, 2010, and this Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this __16th__ day of ____June_____________________, 2010.

__/S/__________________________ JULIE H. O’KANE Circuit Court Judge

_/S/__________________________

_/S/___________________________ ROGER J. MCDONALD

GAIL A. ADAMS Circuit Court Judge

Circuit Court Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via U.S. mail or hand delivery to William R. Ponall, Esq., Kirkconnell, Lindsey, Snure, & Yates, P.A., P.O. Box 272, Winter Park, FL 32790; and to Heather Rose Cramer, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, DHSMV-Legal Office, P.O. Box 540609, Lake Worth, FL 33454-0609, on this __16th____ day of _____June___________________, 2010.

_/S/____________________________

Judicial Assistant


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw