Fisher v. Jorgensen

Decision Date01 December 1983
Docket NumberNo. 83CA0309,83CA0309
Citation674 P.2d 1003
PartiesJack Randall FISHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. JORGENSEN, Hearing Officer for the Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division of the State of Colorado; Alan N. Charnes, Executive Director, Department of Revenue, State of Colorado; and R.W. Skeen, Administrator, Motor Vehicle Driver Improvement Section, State of Colorado, Defendants-Appellees. . II
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

G. William Beardslee, Fort Collins, for plaintiff-appellant.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Roger M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendants-appellees.

VAN CISE, Judge.

Jack Randall Fisher appeals the district court's affirmance of an order issued by the Department of Revenue denying him a probationary license following the suspension of his driver's license. We affirm.

Fisher's driver's license was suspended for an excess accumulation of points resulting from various traffic violations, none of which was alcohol or drug-related. That suspension is not at issue in this appeal.

Fisher requested a probationary license for employment purposes and presented evidence of need. However, citing aggravating factors in Fisher's driving record (a prior suspension, convictions for reckless driving and eluding, points in excess of the number required for suspension, and repeated speeding violations), the hearing officer denied Fisher's request for a probationary license and concluded that he was "unsafe to drive under any conditions." On appeal, the district court affirmed the suspension and the denial of the probationary license.


On appeal to this court, Fisher contends that the hearing officer made inadequate findings of fact to support the conclusion that Fisher was "unsafe to drive under any conditions." His contention is inapplicable and is without merit.

Since Elizondo v. Motor Vehicle Division, 194 Colo. 113, 570 P.2d 518 (1977), the decision on whether to grant or deny a probationary license is governed by § 42-2-123(11), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.), as supplemented by Department of Revenue Regulation No. 2-123.11, 1 Code Colo.Reg. 204-8 (1977). The need of the applicant for a probationary license is merely one factor to be considered by the hearing officer in conjunction with the enumerated aggravating and mitigating factors in the driver's cumulative driving record. Sonoda v. State, 664 P.2d 259 (Colo.App.1983); Edwards v. State, 42 Colo.App. 52, 592 P.2d 1345 (1978). Here, the hearing officer made findings with respect to such of those factors as were applicable.

There is nothing in § 42-2-123(11) or in the regulation that refers to a finding of "unsafe to drive under any conditions." Cf. § 42-2-123(13), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.) and Isberg v. Department of Revenue, 670 P.2d 29 (Colo.App.1983). Therefore, that statement was irrelevant. The other findings of aggravation, however, are sufficient to sustain the denial.


Fisher also argues that the statutory scheme of §§ 42-2-123(11) and (13), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.) denies him equal protection because an individual whose license suspension is based, at least in part, on an alcohol or drug-related offense must be granted a probationary license unless the hearing officer finds that he is "unsafe to drive for any purpose," while no such finding is required before denying a probationary license to a driver with no alcohol-related offenses. He suggests that there is no rational basis for such classification.

Although this argument challenges the facial constitutionality of a statute, the Supreme Court has determined that this court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Fields, 82CA0628
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • August 9, 1984 address the issue of the statute's constitutionality. See People v. Wieder, 693 P.2d 1006 (Colo.App.1984); Fisher v. Jorgensen, 674 P.2d 1003 (Colo.App.1983). The first step in any equal protection analysis is to determine the standard to be used in assessing the validity of the challeng......
  • People v. Salazar, 83CA1066
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • September 12, 1985
    ...on other issues); People v. Wieder, 693 P.2d 1006 (Colo.App.1984) (cert. granted, January 14, 1985, on other issues); Fisher v. Jorgensen, 674 P.2d 1003 (Colo.App.1983). III. Defendant argues that violation of the sequestration order by a police officer should have precluded the testimony o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT