Dowling v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles

• Decision Date: 21 July 1997
• Citation: 425 Mass. 523,682 N.E.2d 842
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Robert G. DOWLING, Third, v. REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES & another. 1

Page 842

682 N.E.2d 842

425 Mass. 523

Robert G. DOWLING, Third, v. REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES & another. ¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Barnstable.

Argued May 8, 1997.

Decided July 21, 1997.

Gregory S. Gilman, Assistant Attorney General (Peter Senopoulos, Boston, with him), for defendants.

Gerald S. Garnick (Lois M. Farmer, with him), Hyannis, for plaintiff.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and ABRAMS, O'CONNOR, GREANEY and MARSHALL, JJ.

O'CONNOR, Justice.

On January 16, 1996, the plaintiff, Robert G. Dowling, III, was convicted in New Hampshire of driving while under the influence of alcohol. As a result, his right to operate a motor vehicle in that State was suspended for one year. At the time of his conviction, Dowling held a valid Massachusetts driver's license. On January 29, 1996, the defendant registrar of motor vehicles (registrar) was officially notified of Dowling's conviction in New Hampshire and of the one-year suspension of his right to operate a motor vehicle in that State. The registrar suspended Dowling's Massachusetts license for one year.

Dowling appealed to the defendant board of appeal on motor vehicle liability policies and bonds (board). After a hearing, the board affirmed the registrar's action. Dowling then sought review of the board's decision in the Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 14(7). A judge in that court concluded that the registrar's suspension of the plaintiff's driver's license for one year was contrary to G.L. c. 90, § 22 (c ). He reversed the board's decision and ordered that the suspension not exceed ninety days. The defendants appealed to the Appeals Court and we transferred the case to this court on our own initiative.

The first paragraph of G.L. c. 90, § 22 (c ), provides as follows: "If the registrar receives official notice ... that a resident of the commonwealth or any person licensed to operate a motor vehicle under the provisions of this chapter has been convicted in another state or country of a motor vehicle violation, the registrar shall give the same effect to said conviction for the purposes of suspension, revocation, limitation or reinstatement of the right to operate a motor vehicle, as if said violation had occurred in the commonwealth."

The third paragraph of c. 90, § 22 (c ), provides: "If the registrar receives official notice ... that a resident of the commonwealth, or any person licensed to operate a motor vehicle under the provisions of chapter ninety, or any applicant therefor has had a license or right to operate suspended or revoked in another state or country, the registrar shall not issue a license to said person, and if a license has already been issued the registrar shall immediately revoke said license, without a prior hearing. However, if said license or right to operate is subsequently reinstated by such other state or country, the person may apply to the registrar for reinstatement of said license in the commonwealth."

The registrar received official notice of two events: (1) the plaintiff had been convicted of a motor vehicle violation, and (2) the plaintiff's right to operate a motor vehicle in New Hampshire had been suspended for one year. The question before us is whether the registrar should have ordered the same suspension of the plaintiff's license as would have been appropriate if the conviction had occurred in Massachusetts, as the plaintiff contends and as the first paragraph of § 22 (c ), if it stood alone, would seem to require, ² or instead was correct in ordering a one year suspension in keeping with the suspension imposed in New Hampshire, as the defendants contend was proper and as the third paragraph of § 22 (c ), if it stood alone, would appear to mandate.

We must interpret G.L. c. 90, § 22 (c ), "according to the intent of the Legislature ascertained from all its words construed by the ordinary and approved usage of the language, considered in connection with the cause of its enactment, the mischief or imperfection to be remedied and the main object to be accomplished." Registrar of Motor Vehicles v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liab. Policies & Bonds, 382 Mass. 580, 585, 416 N.E.2d 1373 (1981), quoting Board of Educ. v. Assessor of Worcester, 368 Mass. 511, 513, 333 N.E.2d 450 (1975). Where two statutory provisions relate to the same subject matter, as do the first and third paragraphs of G.L. c. 90, § 22 (c ), whenever it is reasonably possible "they should be construed together so as to constitute an harmonious whole consistent with the legislative purpose." Registrar of Motor Vehicles v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liab. Policies & Bonds, supra. We are satisfied that the two paragraphs in question can be harmoniously construed in a manner that is consistent with the legislative purpose.

"The duty of statutory interpretation is for the courts ... but an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute within its charge is accorded weight and deference.... Where the [agency's] statutory interpretation is reasonable ... the court should not supplant [its] judgment." (Citations omitted.) Massachusetts Medical Soc'y v. Commissioner of Ins., 402 Mass. 44, 62, 520 N.E.2d 1288 (1988). According to the registrar and the board, both rules contained in the first and third paragraphs of G.L. c. 90, § 22 (c ), apply when a Massachusetts resident or license holder's license or right to operate has been suspended or revoked in another State as a result of a conviction for a motor vehicle violation. In effect, this means that the rule of the first paragraph will govern when the suspension provided by Massachusetts law is longer than the suspension imposed by the sister State, and the rule of the third paragraph will govern when...