Beyond the Sun
CARSON CITY -- Two motorists convicted of drunk driving twice within seven years in Clark County have defeated the state Department of Motor Vehicles in the courts over the suspension of their driver's licenses.
And other motorists are waiting in the wings to see if they can get the same break.
The Nevada Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on whether the motor vehicles agency is barred from suspending driver’s licenses for one year in certain cases in which a motorist is convicted of DUI twice in a seven-year period.
Tracy L. Terracin and Matthew Casey, both of Las Vegas, are viewed as test cases.
Each had two DUI convictions within seven years. The standard for the state agency was to suspend the license for one year, but in the second DUI arrest, the criminal complaint said this was the first conviction.
And the first conviction carries only a 90-day suspension of the driver’s license.
Tom Conner, the attorney for both Terracin and Casey, says that a 2005 law makes the number of DUI arrests within a seven year period irrelevant. He said this is the first arrest on the criminal record and it merits only a 90-day suspension.
District judges Jessie E. Walsh and Michelle Leavitt both issued rulings supporting the Conner position and the state has now appealed.
Senior Deputy Attorney General Kimberly Buchanan, representing the DMV, says in her brief to the court that the number of violations within a seven-year period is “still critical in determining the length of the revocation period.”
Even though these two individuals were punished as first offenders, the law still permits the department to hand out the administrative penalty since they were convicted twice in seven years, Buchanan said.
“It is well settled that a DMV licensing proceeding is an administrative, civil proceeding, separate and independent from the criminal action,” she wrote.
Buchanan says there is nothing in the record of the 2005 Legislature to show that the law change was to change the way the DMV calculates the length of the revocation period.
But Conner argues that any prior DUI offense must be listed on the face of the criminal complaint. “The state chose not to even allege a prior DUI violation,” in the case of Terracin. In Casey’s case, the second DUI offense was negotiated down to a first offense DUI.
The “language in the statute is expressly clear and unambiguous,” Conner said in his brief to the court.
Casey was convicted in April 2005 of DUI in Las Vegas Justice Court. Then he was arrested in September 2005 and charged with a second DUI offense. But after negotiations, he was convicted in May 2006 of the first offense.
Terracin was first convicted of DUI in 2002 and then convicted in 2006. The criminal complaint said it was her first offense.
Tom Jacobs, public information officer for the DMV, said there are other similar cases that will be affected by the decision from the Supreme Court, which will take the arguments under study on Tuesday and issue a ruling later.
Cy Ryan may be reached at (775) 687 5032 or [email protected]
Join the Discussion:
Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.
Full comments policy