Crampton v. Michigan Dept. of State
| Decision Date | 26 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 17878,2 |
| Citation | 220 N.W.2d 765,54 Mich.App. 211 |
| Parties | Clyde B. CRAMPTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Charles D. Hackney, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellant.
Thomas H. Hay, Church, Wyble, Kritselis & Tesseris, Lansing, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before QUINN, P.J., and V. J. BRENNAN and CARLAND,* JJ.
Plaintiff was arrested on a charge of driving an automobile under the influence of liquor, M.C.L.A. § 257.625; M.S.A. § 9.2325. He refused to take a chemical test pursuant to the implied consent law, M.C.L.A. § 257.625c; M.S.A. § 9.2325(3). The notice required by M.C.L.A. § 257.625e; M.S.A. § 9.2325(5) was sent to plaintiff November 30, 1972, and plaintiff requested a hearing before the license appeal board, M.C.L.A. § 257.625f; M.S.A. § 9.2325(6).
The hearing was conducted by appeal board representatives of the Secretary of State and the local police department as provided by M.C.L.A. § 257.322; M.S.A. § 9.2022. The appeal board refused to restore plaintiff's driving privileges and he filed for judicial review, M.C.L.A. § 257.625f(3); M.S.A. § 9.2325(6) (3).
Plaintiff is a resident of Lansing and he was arrested by an officer of the Lansing Police Department. One of plaintiff's contentions in the trial court was that the proceedings before the license appeal board were void because the makeup of that board violated his right to due process. The reasoning advanced in support of this position was that a fair hearing before an impartial administrative body was not possible when one member of that body was a member of the same police department as the arresting officer whose credibility might determine the outcome of the administrative hearing. Concisely, the police department member of the license appeal board could not be fair and impartial in a situation which required him to judge the credibility of a fellow officer.
No testimony was taken below. The cause was submitted on arguments and briefs. No specific acts or occurrences of bias on the part of the police department representative were shown. The trial court judgment held M.C.L.A. § 257.322, requiring a police officer to sit in judgment upon a fellow police officer of the same community in hearing appeals under the provisions of M.C.L.A. § 257.625f, Supra, to be unconstitutional in violation of due process depriving plaintiff of a fair trial in a fair and impartial tribunal. The proceedings before the license appeal board were held void and plaintiff's operator's license was restored.
Defendant appeals. Plaintiff cross-appeals as to all issues raised below and denied or not decided by the trial court.
The record contains no proof of bias or unfairness on the part of the police department representative who sat on the license appeal board in this case. It does not appear that the arresting officer's credibility was even in issue. We are asked to assume the bias and unfairness relied on by the plaintiff and the trial court from the composition of the license appeal board and further to assume that the arresting officer's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crampton v. Michigan Dept. of State
...his operator's license be restored. The Court of Appeals reversed holding that Crampton had failed to establish actual bias. 54 Mich.App. 211, 220 N.W.2d 765 (1974). We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to the circuit court for entry of an order restoring Crampton's operator's While t......