DOMINIC FORTH, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, APPELLEE
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.
Dominic Forth's driver's license suspension was upheld by a hearing officer despite Forth's objection that the officer departed from impartiality by unilaterally introducing a letter attacking his expert witness's credibility. The circuit court quashed the suspension order and remanded for new proceedings, but the appellate court reversed that remand as moot because Forth's suspension had expired during the review process.
The appellate court quashed the circuit court's remand order because the issue had become moot when the suspension period expired during review. However, the court upheld the circuit court's quashing of the administrative order itself, finding the hearing officer had departed from impartiality and violated procedural due process.
[1] A hearing officer departs from impartiality when they sua sponte introduce evidence attacking the credibility of a party's expert witness.
[2] A driver's license suspension is moot when the suspension period expires during the administrative or judicial review process.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“When the witness was called, the hearing officer sua sponte produced a letter attacking the credibility of the expert, and she placed the letter into evidence herself. Forth objected to the admission of the letter and the action of the hearing officer who, he contended, had departed from her impartial role.”
Establishes the fundamental due process violation: the hearing officer unilaterally introduced evidence attacking Forth's expert's credibility without notice or opportunity to respond.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceForth's driver's license was suspended based on a breath sample showing blood-alcohol content above the legal limit. At his formal hearing before a he…
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 Second Tier Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Dominic Forth’s license to drive was suspended pursuant to section 322.2615(1), Florida Statutes (2011), based on a breath sample that indicated his blood-alcohol content was above the legal limit. Forth requested a formal review of the suspension, which entails a hearing before a hearing officer employed by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. § 322.2615(6). The hearing officer upheld the suspension. Forth sought certiorari review of the hearing officer’s order in the circuit court, §§ 322.2615(14), 322.31, and it quashed the order and remanded for further proceedings. Forth now seeks our second-tier certiorari review and asks us to quash only that portion of the circuit court’s order that remands the case to the hearing officer. We grant the petition on this point.
Forth hired an expert witness to testify on his behalf at the hearing. When the witness was called, the hearing officer sua sponte produced a letter attacking the credibility of the expert, and she placed the letter into evidence herself. Forth objected to the admission of the letter and the action of the hearing officer who, he contended, had departed from her impartial role. The hearing officer noted the objection, but she upheld the suspension of Forth’s license.
On first-tier certiorari review, the circuit court quashed the order, finding that the hearing officer’s actions involving the letter evinced her departure from impartiality. Because the hearing officer was not neutral, Forth was not accorded procedural due process. The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Forth filed a motion for clarification, advising that the Department interpreted the circuit court’s remand for further proceedings as meaning that a new formal hearing under section 322.2615(6) must be held. The circuit court denied Forth’s motion.
Our certiorari review of a circuit court’s review of an administrative decision is limited to determining whether the circuit court afforded due process and whether it applied the correct law. See Nader v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 87 So.3d 712, 722-23 (Fla.2012) (quoting Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 530-31 (Fla.1995)). In January 2013, when the circuit court ruled on Forth’s petition, this court had already announced its decision in McLaughlin v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 128 So.3d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). McLaughlin also involved a challenge to an administrative decision upholding a driver’s license suspension. As we noted, McLaughlin’s suspension period had expired while the matter was being reviewed. The McLaughlin court held that, in such circumstances, we would remand to the circuit court to quash the administrative order but that “no further proceedings [were] necessary on remand because the issue of the validity of the suspension of [the] driver’s license is moot.” Id.
As in McLaughlin, Forth’s license suspension expired while it was under review. Thus the circuit court in this case failed to apply the correct law when it remanded this moot issue to the administrative tribunal. We quash the circuit court’s order to the extent that it remanded the case. We do not disturb the order insofar as it quashed the administrative order.
Petition granted.
ALTENBERND and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wiggins v. Fla. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 209 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 2017)…So. 3d at 1079 (stating that a petitioner seeking review of a license suspension under section 322.2615 must be afforded reasonable notice and meaningful review of the lawfulness of the suspension); Forth v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 148 So. 3d 781, 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (quashing the circuit court’s' decision to remand to the Department after it was found that the hearing officer was not impartial); Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Griffin, 909 So. 2d 538, 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 2…
-
Lacey Faith Gordon v. State, 166 So. 3d 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…nsion expired during the pendency of the proceedings, when the circuit court quashed the hearing officer’s order, the validity of the license suspension became moot, relying on McLaughlin and Forth v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 148 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Therefore, she claims [*905] that the circuit court did not apply the correct law in remanding for further proceedings. In McLaughlin, the second district quashed a circuit court order denying certiorari relief from an administra…
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Gaputis, 148 So. 3d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…the issue of the validity of the suspension of [the] driver’s license is moot”). The Department now claims, incorrectly, that the circuit court applied the wrong law. As we recently stated in Forth v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 148 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), McLaughlin is the correct applicable law. Petition denied. ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Nader v. Fla. Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 87 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 2012)
- McLAUGHLIN v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 128 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)