Jennings v. Mahoney 8212 5179

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: Jennings v. Mahoney 8212 5179, 404 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 180, 30 L.Ed.2d 146 (1971)
• Decision Date: 09 November 1971
• Docket Number: No. 71,71
• Parties: Lynda M. JENNINGS v. Jack MAHONEY, Director, Financial Responsibility Division, Dept. of Public Safety of the State of Utah. —5179

404 U.S. 25

92 S.Ct. 180

30 L.Ed.2d 146

Lynda M. JENNINGS

v Jack MAHONEY, Director, Financial Responsibility Division, Dept. of Public Safety of the State of Utah.

No. 71—5179.

Decided Nov. 9, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a Utah motorist, was involved in a collision. Both drivers and a police officer who investigated the accident filed accident reports with Utah's Department of Public Safety as required by the Utah Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act. Without affording appellant a hearing on fault, and based solely on the contents of the accident reports, the Director of the Financial Responsibility Division determined that there was a reasonable possibility that appellant was at fault. Appellant did not carry liability insurance and was unable to post security to show financial responsibility. The Director therefore suspended her license. A Utah District Court sustained the Director, and the Supreme Court of Utah affirmed. 26 Utah 2d 128, 485 P.2d 1404 (1971).

The proceedings were authorized under Utah Code Ann.1953, §§ 41—12—2(b) and 41—6—35 (1953). Appellant attacks the statutory scheme as not affording the procedural due process required by our decision in Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971). We there held that the Georgia version of a motor vehicle responsibility law was constitutionally deficient for failure to afford the uninsured motorist procedural due process. We held that although a determination that there was a reasonable possibility that the motorist was at fault in the accident sufficed, 'before the State may deprive (him) of his driver's license and vehicle registration,' the State must provide 'a forum for the determination of the question' and a 'meaningful . . . 'hearing appropriate to the nature of the case." Id., at 541 542, 91 S.Ct., at 1591. Appellant submits that Utah's statutory scheme falls short of these requirements in two respects: (1) by not requiring a stay of the Director's order...