City of Redmond v. Arroyo-Murillo

• Citation: 70 P.3d 947,149 Wash.2d 607
• Decision Date: 12 June 2003
• Docket Number: No. 72599-3.,72599-3.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF REDMOND, Petitioner, v. Juan ARROYO-MURILLO, Respondent.

70 P.3d 947

149 Wash.2d 607

CITY OF REDMOND, Petitioner, v. Juan ARROYO-MURILLO, Respondent.

No. 72599-3.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Argued February 13, 2003.

Decided June 12, 2003.

Richard L. Mitchell, Redmond, for Petitioner.

Donna Tucker, Bellevue, for Respondent.

BRIDGE, J.

The City of Redmond (City) challenges a superior court decision holding that due process is not satisfied when the Department of Licensing (DOL) mails a license revocation notice to an address obtained from a traffic ticket rather than the address provided to the DOL by the license holder. RCW 46.20.205 requires the holder of a driver's license to notify the DOL of an address change, but also allows the DOL to change a license holder's address by "other means as designated by rule of the department." RCW 46.20.205(1). Due process requires that the holder of a driver's license be given notice and an opportunity for a hearing prior to revocation. Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971). The superior court upheld the district court's dismissal of the charges, finding that mailing the notice to an address other than the one provided by the license holder did not comply with due process as set forth in State v. Dolson, 138 Wash.2d 773, 982 P.2d 100 (1999). We reverse.

I

In February 1998, the DOL revoked Juan Arroyo-Murillo's driver's license for five years on the grounds that he was a habitual traffic offender. The DOL notified Arroyo-Murillo by sending him an order of revocation and a hearing request form. The DOL sent the documents to Arroyo-Murillo's address of record,¹ 921 139th Avenue NE, # A4-115, Bellevue, WA 98005 (the "921" address), by certified mail. The notification was signed for at the "921" address, but the parties disagree over the legibility of the signature, with the City maintaining that it reads "Veronica Arroyo" and Arroyo-Murillo arguing that it is illegible.²

The DOL had obtained the "921" address and up dated its records accordingly based on a traffic ticket dated May 27, 1997, that was issued to Arroyo-Murillo and forwarded to the DOL by the King County District Court, Bellevue Division.³ Arroyo-Murillo signed the ticket, but the box entitled "new address" was not checked. Prior to this incident, Arroyo-Murillo's address of record was based on the identicard application that he submitted to the DOL, which listed his address as 15500 NE 11th Street, # D312, Bellevue, WA 98007 (the "155" address). When the DOL revoked his license, it sent the order of revocation only to the "921" address. The record does not indicate whether Arroyo-Murillo in fact received the notice.⁴

On March 4, 2001, Arroyo-Murillo was stopped by a police officer for failing to signal a lane change. Upon checking his driver's license, the officer saw that his license had been revoked by the DOL. The officer cited him and the City of Redmond later charged him with driving while license suspended/revoked in the first degree. A bench trial was held before the Honorable David S. Admire in King County District Court, Northeast Division, on August 14, 2001. Arroyo-Murillo argued that his due process rights were violated because the DOL sent notice of the revocation only to the "921" address, which the DOL had obtained from the 1997 traffic ticket. Arroyo-Murillo asserted that the order should have been sent to both the "921" and the "155" addresses in order to comply with due process. Judge Admire agreed and dismissed the charge.

The City appealed to the King County Superior Court. On May 3, 2002, the Honorable Douglas A. North affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case. In its entirety, Judge North's opinion reads:

The trial court properly held that the revocation notice mailed by [DOL] to an address other than the one provided by the defendant pursuant to RCW 46.20.205 did not comply with due process as set forth in Dolson. The evidence showed that the notice was mailed to an address other than the one provided by the Defendant. The burden was then upon the City to prove that the driver received the notice even though the [DOL] was authorized by WAC 308-104-018 to update the driver's address of record by other means. The court finds WAC 308-104-018 inconsistent with RCW 46.20.205 as interpreted by Dolson.

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 17.

The City filed a motion in this court for direct discretionary review pursuant to RAP 4.2(a), which was granted on October 4, 2002.

II

A driver's license cannot be revoked without due process of law. Dolson, 138 Wash.2d at 776-77, 982 P.2d 100 (citing Bell, 402 U.S. 535, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90). Due process requires that the license holder be given notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the revocation. Dolson, 138 Wash.2d at 777, 982 P.2d 100; State v. Rogers, 127 Wash.2d 270, 275, 898 P.2d 294 (1995). The notice must be "reasonably calculated to inform the affected party of the pending action and of the opportunity to object." Dolson, 138 Wash.2d at 777, 982 P.2d 100. The State bears the burden of proving that the revocation complied with due process. Id. If the revocation does not comply with due process, it is void. Id.

Statutory Requirements

The legislature has codified the constitutional due process requirements with regard to license revocations for habitual offenders in RCW 46.65.065:

Whenever a person's driving record, as maintained by the department, brings him or her within the definition of an habitual traffic offender, as defined in RCW 46.65.020, the department shall forthwith notify the person of the revocation in writing by certified mail at his or her address of record as maintained by the department.

RCW 46.65.065(1). A driver's address of record is maintained by the DOL pursuant to RCW 46.20.205, which requires the holder of a driver's license or identicard to notify the DOL of an address change within 10 days. RCW 46.20.205(1) further states: "The written notification, or other means as designated by rule of the department, is the exclusive means by which the address of record maintained by the department concerning the licensee or identicard holder may be changed." (Emphasis added.)⁵ The applicable department rule provides that the DOL may change a license holder's address of record upon:

(b) Receipt of written documentation or electronic communication concerning the driver or identicard holder, where such documentation or communication includes an address that differs from the one maintained by department and is:

(i) Signed by the driver or identicard holder;

(ii) Filed at the request of the driver or identicard holder (iii) Filed by a public official or governmental agency.

WAC 308-104-018(1). Neither the RCW nor the WAC requires the DOL to notify the license holder when it updates an address of record pursuant to WAC 308-104-018. Furthermore, RCW 46.20.205(1)(b) provides that a revocation notice sent to a license holder's address of record is effective even if the license holder does not receive it.

The City argues that there was no due process violation because the DOL complied with the statutory requirements by sending notification of Arroyo-Murillo's license revocation to his address of record as required by RCW 46.65.065. Pursuant to RCW 46.20.205 and WAC 308-104-018, the DOL was authorized to update Arroyo-Murillo's address based on the traffic ticket because it was written documentation that was signed by the driver and it was filed by a governmental agency, the King County District Court. Furthermore, because Arroyo-Murillo signed the traffic ticket listing his address as the "921" address, he averred that it was his correct address.

Arroyo-Murillo claims his due process rights were violated because the DOL sent the notice of his license revocation and opportunity for a hearing to an address other than the one that he provided to the DOL on his identicard application. Not only did he not provide the "921" address to the DOL as his current address, he argues, but he had specifically changed his address from the "921" to the "155" address with the DOL in August 1996, when he applied for his identicard. He implies that the DOL should have known that the "921" address was incorrect since he had changed it once in the past. When the DOL received the 1997 traffic ticket, it changed his address back to the "921" address without notifying Arroyo-Murillo of the change. Arroyo-Murillo argues that in order to comply with due process, the DOL should have mailed the revocation notice to both addresses.

The district court agreed, dismissing the charges against Arroyo-Murillo. The superior court upheld the district court, stating that "the revocation notice mailed by [DOL] to an address other than the one provided by the defendant pursuant to RCW 46.20.205 did not comply with due process as set forth in Dolson." CP at 17. However, Dolson did not hold that due process requires notice to be sent to the address provided by the license holder, nor have any other cases from this court so held.

Like Arroyo-Murillo, Dolson defended the charge of driving while his license was suspended by arguing that the DOL had violated due process by sending notification of the revocation to the wrong address. Dolson, 138 Wash.2d at 776, 982 P.2d 100. The DOL sent the notice to an address obtained from a traffic ticket, which was not the address listed on Dolson's driver's license. Id. Nor was it Dolson's official address of record according to DOL records. Id. This court held that the DOL was required to follow the statutory procedure set forth by the legislature, which at the time required the DOL to rely on the address provided by the license holder. Id. at 779, 982 P.2d 100.

Dolson is distinguishable from the case at bar. When Dolson's license was revoked, RCW 46.20.205 provided that the only way for a license holder's address of record to be updated was by written notification from the license holder. Id. at 777, 982 P.2d 100. As...