Campbell, Matter of
| Decision Date | 10 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 11777,11777 |
| Citation | 250 N.W.2d 280 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Revocation of the Driver's License of James Neon CAMPBELL. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Judith A. Atkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for respondent State of South Dakota; William J. Janklow, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on the brief.
Gary E. Davis, of Johnson, Johnson & Eklund, Gregory, for petitioner and appellant James Neon Campbell.
This is an appeal from an order revoking the driving license of James Neon Campbell after a trial de novo in the Circuit Court of the Ninth (now Third) Judicial Circuit pursuant to SDCL 32--23--12. On appeal, petitioner contends that the trial court erred in finding (1) that there was probable cause to arrest, (2) that the arrest was valid where petitioner was not given his Miranda rights, (3) that there was a refusal to take a blood test when the petitioner stated he would take the test if administered by his personal physician, (4) that the petitioner was given due process before the state hearing examiner, and (5) that the petitioner was properly advised of his rights under the implied consent laws. We affirm.
The petitioner was originally stopped by the officers to warn him of excessive speed. After an exchange of remarks with the officers, it was suspected that he had been drinking. A field sobriety test was then administered, and it was determined that petitioner's speech was slurred, that he was unsteady on his feet, and that he smelled of alcoholic beverages. At this point, the officers arrested petitioner for a driving offense committed in their presence. There was ample probable cause for the arrest.
The giving of Miranda rights would be immaterial in this civil case for the revocation of a driving license. In any event, there is no indication that the petitioner gave any incriminating statements which could be used against him even in a criminal trial.
Petitioner's right to call a personal physician was fully explained by this court in Beare v. Smith, 1966, 82 S.D. 20, 140 N.W.2d 603. This gives no right of refusal to the taking of a test from the doctor or technician supplied by the officers in the first instance.
Petitioner complains that he was not afforded due process by the hearing examiner. The hearing before the examiner is limited in scope. If the examiner finds (1) that there was probable cause for the arrest, (2) that the petitioner was properly advised of the consequences of his failure to take the blood test, and (3) that the petitioner refused the test, his conclusion must be that the license be revoked. The word 'shall' is mandatory after a finding of the above facts. In any event, the petitioner here was also afforded a full hearing in a trial de novo before the circuit court. He has no cause for a complaint of lack of due process.
Further, the petitioner was fully advised of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. State
... ... A similar contention was raised in, and overruled by, this court in Matter of Campbell, S.D., 250 N.W.2d 280 (1977). Here Peterson appealed to the circuit court, which entered judgment reversing the decision of the hearing ... ...
-
Revocation of Driver's License of Olien, Matter of
... ... See Anderson v. Sager, 173 F.2d 794 (8th Cir.1949) ... State v. Fonder, 323 N.W.2d 131, 132-33 (S.D.1982), quoting State v. Oyen, 286 N.W.2d 317, 318-19 (S.D.1979). See Dept. of Public Safety v. Gates, 350 N.W.2d 59 (S.D.1984); In re Campbell, 250 N.W.2d 280 (S.D.1977). In this case ample probable cause existed to arrest Olien. Hence, the provisions of SDCL 32-23-10 were available to support the revocation of his license. See Kirby, supra ... Olien employs the dismissal of the criminal prosecution to support his ... ...
-
Frawley Ranches, Inc. v. Lasher
... ... The Board returned to its regular meeting place to further consider the matter, hear expert witnesses, and assess the amount of damages ... Page 371 ... Appellant was given notice and the opportunity to be ... Matter of Campbell, 1977, S.D., 250 N.W.2d 280 ... APPLICABILITY OF SDCL 1-26 (SDAPA) ... It is appellant's argument that under the South Dakota ... ...
-
Department of Public Safety v. Weinrich
... ... public safety under the provisions of § 32-23-11 shall have the right to file a petition within thirty days thereafter for a hearing in the matter in the circuit court for the county wherein such person was charged with the violation, and such court is hereby vested with jurisdiction and it ... Although the trial court's interpretation of scope of review was incorrect under Matter of Campbell, 1977, S.D., 250 N.W.2d 280, and Peterson v. State, 1977, S.D., 261 N.W.2d 405, defendant Weinrich has "no cause for a complaint of lack of due ... ...