Mameda v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, 84CA0079
| Decision Date | 28 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84CA0079,84CA0079 |
| Citation | 698 P.2d 277 |
| Parties | Herbert Dean Hideo MAMEDA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant-Appellant. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
No appearance for plaintiff-appellee.
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., James R. Willis, Steven M. Bush, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The primary issue in this appeal is whether a hearing officer, in a proceeding concerning the revocation of a driver's license, can refuse to accept into evidence the result of an independently tested breath test sample. We rule that the results of the independent test must be accepted into evidence. Therefore, the ruling of the trial court which reversed the hearing officer is affirmed, and the cause is remanded with directions to remand to the hearing officer for a new hearing.
The plaintiff, Herbert Mameda, was stopped by a police officer after his vehicle had run a stop sign. The officer observed that Mameda's eyes were bloodshot and watery, that he had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, and that his speech was slurred. Therefore, the officer asked Mameda to perform a series of physical coordination tests, which he failed. Thereafter, Mameda was placed under arrest, taken to the sheriff's office, and given a breathalyzer test which indicated a blood alcohol reading of .152. Mameda obtained the duplicate sample and had it independently tested; the result was a reading of .131.
At a hearing held pursuant to § 42-2-122.1(8)(a), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17), Mameda attempted to offer into evidence the result of the independent testing. The hearing officer ruled that the General Assembly did not intend to allow the admission into evidence of independent blood alcohol tests in administrative express consent hearings. He therefore considered only the evidence given by the state, and found that Mameda had been driving with a blood alcohol level of .15 or greater. Based upon these findings, the hearing officer revoked Mameda's license for one year.
Mameda sought judicial review of that decision in the district court. The court found that the hearing officer had erroneously interpreted the law when he ruled that the legislative intent of the law prohibited him from considering the results of the second test; that denying Mameda the right to present evidence upon the crucial issue to be determined was in violation of his constitutional rights and effectively denied him due process of law; and that the ruling was arbitrary and capricious and rendered the hearing nothing more than a sham. The court therefore ordered that the action taken at the administrative hearing be reversed.
The Department of Revenue appeals, contending that the hearing officer was correct in limiting the admissibility of evidence at the administrative hearing to the state's alcohol test and that, therefore, the trial court erred. We disagree.
Section 42-2-122.1(7), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17) provides that any person who has received a notice of revocation may make a written request for a review of the department's determination at a hearing. Section 42-2-122.1(8)(c), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17), states:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanson v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div., 11CA1351.
...written request entitled driver to reversal of the revocation order and to a new revocation hearing); Mameda v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue, 698 P.2d 277, 279 (Colo.App.1985) (reversing revocation and remanding for a new hearing based on the hearing officer's erroneous evidentiary ruling that......
-
Kirke v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div., 84CA1017
...would be relevant to determination of the issue that is the subject of the hearing. Bell v. Burson, supra; Mameda v. Colorado Department of Revenue, 698 P.2d 277 (Colo.App.1985). An appropriate administrative hearing is one in which the parties are apprised of all evidence to be submitted a......
-
Nefzger v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div., 86SA2
...opportunity to contest the results of chemical testing performed at the request of the arresting officer, see Mameda v. Colorado Department of Revenue, 698 P.2d 277 (Colo.App.1985), the state of Colorado did provide Nefzger with such an opportunity in this case. Nefzger concedes that the Au......
-
Havens v. Charnes, 86CA1128
...589 P.2d 924 (1979). The right to present evidence of an independent test on the second sample was stated in Mameda v. Colorado Department of Revenue, 698 P.2d 277 (Colo.App.1985). However, in People v. Pope, 724 P.2d 1323 (Colo.1986), our supreme court noted that the federal due process co......
-
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test Evidence in Colorado the Framework Under Campbell v. People
...licensee may not be denied the opportunity to present rebuttal evidence challenging breath test results. Mameda v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, 698 P.2d 277, 279 (Colo.App. 1985). [45] See https://www.codot.gov/safety/alcohol-and-impaired-driving/law-enforcement/a ride. [46] Nat’l Inst. on Drug ......