Fedziuk v. Commissioner of Public Safety, No. A04-2328.

• Decision Date: 19 May 2005
• Docket Number: No. A04-2328.
• Citation: 696 N.W.2d 340
• Parties: Patricia Agnes FEDZIUK, Respondent, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

696 N.W.2d 340

Patricia Agnes FEDZIUK, Respondent, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant.

No. A04-2328.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 19, 2005.

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Jeffery Lebowski, Sean McCarthy, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for Appellant.

Jeffery S. Sheridan, Strandemo, Sheridan & Dulas, Eagan, MN, Respondent.

Stephen Simon, Attorney at Law, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, for Amicus Curiae Criminal Justice System DWI Task Force.

Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

HANSON, J.

In this declaratory judgment action, respondent Patricia Fedziuk asked the district court to hold that Minnesota's Implied Consent Law, as amended in 2003, violates procedural due process. The district court determined that the Implied Consent Law's prehearing revocation procedures violate due process. Because of the statewide impact of its decision, the court stayed its order and certified two questions as "important and doubtful":

1. Does Minnesota's implied consent scheme of prehearing revocation offend a driver's state and/or federal constitutional guarantees of due process of law?

2. Is the 1980 version of the implied consent law revived by the declaration that the current implied consent law is unconstitutional? If not, what version, if any, is revived if the current law is struck down?

We granted accelerated review.

We have upheld the constitutionality of the pre-2003 versions of the Implied Consent Law in three decisions: Heddan v. Dirkswager, 336 N.W.2d 54 (Minn.1983); Davis v. Comm'r of Public Safety, 517 N.W.2d 901 (Minn.1994); Hamilton v. Comm'r of Public Safety, 600 N.W.2d 720 (Minn.1999). We now hold that the 2003 amendments to the Implied Consent Law, which removed the requirement for prompt judicial review of a prehearing revocation, rendered the Implied Consent Law unconstitutional as violative of due process and that the version of the Implied Consent Law that existed immediately prior to the 2003 amendments is revived.

The essential facts are not in dispute. Fedziuk was arrested on October 23, 2003, for driving while impaired. The police officers invoked the Implied Consent Law and tested her alcohol concentration. The toxicology report from Fedziuk's blood test did not reveal alcohol in her blood, but reported that the concentration of amphetamine (a Schedule II substance) was 0.17 milligrams per liter.

On March 24, 2004, the Commissioner of Public Safety informed Fedziuk that her driver's license would be revoked for 90 days, effective April 3, 2004. See Minn. Stat. § 169A.52, subd. 4(a)(1) (2002). On April 2, 2004, Fedziuk requested administrative review of the revocation. With that request, Fedziuk raised an affirmative defense under Minn.Stat. § 169A.46 (2004)¹ that the presence of the schedule II controlled substance in her system at the time of her arrest was pursuant to a prescription. She included a letter from her medical doctor stating that she had been taking prescription medication, but the letter did not indicate whether Fedziuk had used the medication as prescribed. On April 14, 2004, the Department of Public Safety sustained the revocation of her driver's license after the administrative review.

Fedziuk also filed for judicial review on or about April 2, 2004. Her implied consent trial date was set for June 1, 2004, within 60 days of the date Fedziuk filed her petition for judicial review.²

Fedziuk also filed a complaint on April 27, 2004, seeking judgment under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 555.01-.16 (2004). She requested a finding and declaration that "Minnesota's Implied Consent Law is unconstitutional as a violation of due process." She also requested that the revocation of her driving privileges be rescinded and that a permanent injunction be issued against the Commissioner to prohibit further enforcement of the Implied Consent Law.

Soon after filing her declaratory judgment action, Fedziuk supplied the Commissioner with information that corroborated her affirmative defense that she had taken her medication according to terms of her prescription. Based on Fedziuk's affirmative defense, the Commissioner administratively rescinded the revocation of Fedziuk's driver's license and references to the incident were removed from Fedziuk's driving record.

Fedziuk nevertheless pursued the declaratory judgment action and filed a motion for summary judgment. The Commissioner argued that Fedziuk's action was moot and that she lacked standing because her license revocation had been rescinded. The Commissioner also argued that Fedziuk failed to demonstrate that she did not have an adequate remedy at law because Fedziuk could have sought temporary reinstatement of her license or moved for an expedited judicial review.

The district court denied the Commissioner's procedural objections and granted summary judgment to Fedziuk, declaring that several of the prehearing revocation procedures, including but not limited to those added with the 2003 amendments, violated Fedziuk's due process rights. The court did not grant Fedziuk's request for a statewide injunction at that time. But, on November 22, 2004, the district court issued an amended order declaring all of the Implied Consent Law's prehearing revocation procedures unconstitutional and determining that the 1980 version of the Implied Consent Law, which did not authorize any prehearing revocation, was revived. Because of the statewide impact of its decision, the court stayed its order and certified the two questions under Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03(i) as "important and doubtful." The Commissioner moved for accelerated review under Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 118, which we granted.³

Certified questions are questions of law that we review de novo. Clark v. Lindquist, 683 N.W.2d 784, 785 (Minn. 2004). The district court may certify a question to the court of appeals that is important and doubtful. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(i). A question that is doubtful need not be one of first impression, but it should be one on which there is substantial ground for a difference of opinion. Jostens, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 612 N.W.2d 878, 885 (Minn.2000). A question is increasingly important if: (1) it will have statewide impact, (2) it is likely to be reversed, (3) it will terminate lengthy proceedings, and (4) the harm inflicted on the parties by a wrong ruling by the district court is substantial. Id. at 884. We conclude that the district court properly certified the questions for appellate review. The decision will have statewide impact and many litigants await our answers to these questions.

I.

We must first decide whether Minnesota's Implied Consent Law, as amended in 2003, violates a driver's due process guarantees.⁴ We review issues of constitutional interpretation de novo. Star Tribune Co. v. Univ. of Minnesota Bd. of Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274, 283 (Minn.2004). The party challenging a statute has the burden of demonstrating, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a constitutional violation has occurred. Heidbreder v. Carton, 645 N.W.2d 355, 372 (Minn.2002). If possible, we must interpret a statute to uphold its constitutionality. St. Paul Cos., Inc. v. Hatch, 449 N.W.2d 130, 137 (Minn.1989).

In 1982, the Minnesota legislature amended the Implied Consent Law to permit prehearing revocation of drivers' licenses in certain specified circumstances. Act of March 19, 1982, ch. 423, § 9, 1982 Minn. Laws 288, 295 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 5 (1982)). In Heddan, we upheld these 1982 amendments to the Implied Consent Law against due process challenges. 336 N.W.2d at 59-63. We employed a three-part test established by the United States Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), for identifying whether due process requires a hearing before property interests are taken away. Heddan, 336 N.W.2d at 59 (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35, 96 S.Ct. 893). Under Mathews, a court must consider three factors:

First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.

Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35,96 S.Ct. 893. In Heddan, we determined that each of the three factors weighed in favor of upholding the prehearing revocation because of substantial protections provided under the statute, including the short duration of the suspension, the immediate availability of limited licenses in hardship cases, and the requirement for prompt postrevocation review in two forms: an immediate administrative review and a prompt judicial review. 336 N.W.2d at 60-63. Our decision to uphold the 1982 amendments was based in part on a side-by-side comparison of Minnesota's Implied Consent Law with a Massachusetts law permitting prehearing revocation of drivers' licenses that the Supreme Court upheld on due process grounds in Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979). Heddan, 336 N.W.2d at 59-63. In general, we concluded that Minnesota's law provided more procedural protections than the Massachusetts law that was upheld in Montrym. Heddan, 336 N.W.2d at 59-60.

In 1992, the legislature reduced those protections when it added a 15-day waiting period before a driver whose license had been rescinded could apply for a limited license and increased the legal consequences of a revocation by allowing it to be used to enhance a future DWI. Act of April 17, 1992, ch. 570, art. 1, § 23, 1992 Minn. Laws 1944, 1961; id., § 7 at 1948 (codified at Minn.Stat. §§ 169.121, subd. 3a; 171.30, subd. 2a (1992)). In Davis, we held that extending the waiting period for a limited...