STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, BUREAU OF DRIVER IMPROVEMENT, PETITIONER,
v.
SAMUEL L. LANKFORD, RESPONDENT
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 Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles sought certiorari review of a circuit court order that invalidated a DUI license suspension because the arresting officer failed to provide a reason for not bringing a videotape of the traffic stop to an administrative hearing despite a subpoena. The appellate court reversed, finding that the circuit court exceeded its authority because no statute or rule authorizes invalidating a DUI suspension for failure to provide good cause for not producing subpoenaed evidence.
The circuit court exceeded its authority and departed from the essential requirements of law by invalidating the license suspension. No statute or rule authorizes invalidation of a DUI suspension because a witness failed to provide good cause for non-compliance with a subpoena duces tecum.
[1] An issue not preserved by objection before a hearing officer is waived and cannot form the basis for reversal of the hearing officer's decision.
[2] A circuit court exceeds its authority by granting a writ of certiorari based on an issue that was waived at the trial level.
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“At no time during either of his two evidentiary hearings did Lankford preserve this issue for review by raising an objection before the hearing officer. Because this argument was waived at the trial level, it could not have been properly used as a basis for reversal of the hearing officer's decision to suspend Lankford's license.”
Establishes the waiver doctrine requiring preservation of issues at the administrative hearing level
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamuel L. Lankford's driver's license was suspended following his arrest for driving under the influence. At an administrative hearing, the arresting …
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 Driver'S License Suspension cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles seeks certiorari review of an order of the circuit court granting Samuel L. Lankford’s petition for writ of certiorari challenging the suspension of his driver’s license based on his arrest for driving under the influence. The circuit court concluded that the hearing officer should have invalidated Lankford’s license suspension because the arresting officer did not provide a reason for failing to bring the videotape of the traffic stop and arrest to the hearing as directed by subpoena duces tecum. This was a departure from the essential requirements of the law.
At no time during either of his two evidentiary hearings did Lankford preserve this issue for review by raising an objection before the hearing officer. Be cause this argument was waived at the trial level, it could not have been properly used as a basis for reversal of the hearing officer’s decision to suspend Lankford’s license. See Dep’t of Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Marshall, 848 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
Moreover, we find no provision in the pertinent statute and rule that authorizes invalidation of a DUI license suspension because a witness did not provide the hearing officer with a good reason for failing to bring evidence pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. See § 322.2615, Fla. Stat. (2004); Fla. R. Admin. P. 15A-6.013.1
Accordingly, we find that the circuit court exceeded its authority, thus departing from the essential requirements of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. See, e.g., Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Snelson, 817 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Scinta, 828 So. 2d 486, 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Moore v. Palilla, 739 So. 2d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
We GRANT the petition for writ of certiorari and QUASH the order below.
BARFIELD, KAHN, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur. . Section 322.2615(6)(c) and rule 15A-6.013(5) authorize a party to enforce a subpoena duces tecum in circuit court when a witness has failed to comply. The hearing officer below informed Lankford of this and continued the proceeding while Lankford successfully pursued this remedy.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Robinson, 93 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…uspension was improper, the DHSMV relied below on the holdings in Buckley v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 135a (Fla. 4th Cir.Ct. Aug. 17, 2010), and Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Lankford, 956 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). In Buckley, a subpoena was issued to secure testimony of an employee from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) regarding the instrument used to measure breath-alcohol content. The FDLE employee refused to appear afte…
-
Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant (13th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2022)
-
Renner_v._DHSMV_ _2022 CA 1216 O_ _11.3.2022 (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Marshall, 848 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Snelson, 817 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Scinta, 828 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Moore v. Palilla, 739 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)