WEI WANG

v.

DHSMV

from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Paul A. Smith, Hearing Officer. Stuart I. Hyman, Esquire, for Petitioner. Kimberly A. Gibbs, Assistant General Counsel, for Respondent.

BEFORE ARNOLD, MCDONALD, LAUTEN, J.J.

PER CURIAM.

FINAL ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner, Wei Wang (“Wang” or “Petitioner”) seeks certiorari review of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles’ (“Department” or “Respondent”) final order sustaining the suspension of his driver’s license for driving with an unlawful breath alcohol level. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 322.2615(13), Florida Statutes and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(c)(3). 2 of 4 Facts and Procedural History On October 7, 2011, Wang was arrested for driving under the influence. Wang provided breath test results of 0.205 and 0.200 and his license was suspended. He requested a formal review hearing pursuant to section 322.2615, Florida Statutes, and a hearing was held on November 10, 2011 and January 9, 2012. At the hearing, Wang attempted to introduce documents related to the 2002 approval study of the Intoxilyzer 8000; transcripts of the testimony of FDLE Inspector Roger Skipper from formal review hearings in other cases in 2006; a letter dated in 2006 from FDLE Custodian of Records Laura Barfield about Intoxilyzer 8000 with software version 8100.26; numerous breath test results obtained from various Intoxilyzer 8000 machines using software 8100.26 and 8100.27 with testing dates in 2006 and 2007; and subpoenas for FDLE Inspector Patrick Murphy, Roger Skipper, Laura Barfield, and FDLE Custodian of Records Jennifer Keegan that the hearing officer did not issue. On January 18, 2012, the hearing officer entered a written order sustaining Petitioner’s license suspension. Standard of Review “The duty of the circuit court on a certiorari review of an administrative agency is limited to three components: Whether procedural due process was followed, whether there was a departure from the essential requirements of law, and whether the administrative findings and judgment were supported by competent substantial evidence.” Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Satter, 643 So. 2d 692, 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). In a formal review of an administrative suspension, the burden of proof is on the State, through the Department. Where the driver license was suspended for driving with an unlawful 3 of 4

breath alcohol level, the hearing officer must find that the following elements have been established by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. Whether the arresting law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe that the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances.

2. Whether the person whose license was suspended had an unlawful blood-alcohol level or breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or higher as provided in § 316.193.

§ 322.2615(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011).

Analysis

In the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Wang argues that: 1) the hearing officer deprived him of due process of law when his license suspension was not set aside due to the failure of the hearing officer to issue subpoenas for Patrick Murphy, Roger Skipper, Jennifer Keegan and Laura Barfield; 2) the breath test results were not properly approved because they were obtained by use of an unapproved breath testing machine and provided scientifically unreliable results; 3) the breath test results were inadmissible due to the failure of the record to contain the annual inspection report; 4) and the Intoxilyzer 8000 was improperly evaluated for approval. This Court denied the Petitions raising these arguments in Klinker v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 2010-CA-19788, Writ 10-70 (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Sept. 10, 2012) and Morrow v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 704a (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Feb. 27, 2012). For the reasons stated in Klinker and Morrow, the Court finds that Petitioner was not deprived of due process and the hearing officer properly admitted the breath tests results. 4 of 4 Based on the foregoing, there was competent substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s findings and Petitioner was not deprived of due process. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this 6th day of November, 2012.

/S/____________________________ C. JEFFERY ARNOLD Circuit Judge

/S/___________________________

/S/____________________________ ROGER J. MCDONALD

FREDERICK J. LAUTEN Circuit Judge

Circuit Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to: Stuart I. Hyman, Esq., Stuart I. Hyman, P.A., 1520 East Amelia St., Orlando, Florida 32803 and to Kimberly A. Gibbs, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, P.O. Box 570066, Orlando, Florida 32857 on this 6th day of November, 2012.

/S/_____________________________

Judicial Assistant