DHSMV
v.
PELHAM
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.
The Ninth Judicial Circuit Court granted in part the Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles' motion for rehearing and remanded the case to allow a hearing officer to reconsider whether a traffic stop was lawful, based on the applicability of the Pelham standard which was decided after the original hearing.
The court granted the Department's motion for rehearing in part and remanded the case to allow the hearing officer to reconsider the lawfulness of the stop consistent with the Pelham standard, finding that the failure to permit such remand deprived the Department of procedural due process.
[1] Depriving a party of the opportunity to have a hearing officer determine the lawfulness of an arrest deprives that party of procedural due process.
[2] A court may grant a motion for rehearing to correct an oversight in applying relevant case law.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“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.”
Establishes that denying remand for the hearing officer to determine lawfulness of stop violates procedural due process
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles sought rehearing of a prior order granting a petition for writ of certiorari. The Department cited t…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Remand cases and more on FLexlaw
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 7, 2010. The Petitioner filed his, “Response to Respondent’s Motion for Rehearing,” on May 14, 2010. 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 Stuart I. Hyman, Esq., Stuart I. Hyman, P.A., 1520 East Amelia St., Orlando, FL 32803; and to Damaris E. Reynolds, 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
- Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Pelham, 979 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)