Nieman v. South Dakota Dept. of Public Safety, 14024
| Citation | 339 N.W.2d 795 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 14024,14024 |
| Parties | Dorothy L. NIEMAN, Petitioner and Appellee, v. SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant. . Considered on Briefs |
| Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
Denis R. Eckert, Elk Point, for petitioner and appellee.
Jeffrey P. Hallem, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for appellant; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief.
The State of South Dakota appeals from a circuit court order vacating a decision of the Department of Public Safety which revoked petitioner Dorothy Nieman's driving privileges for one year. We reverse.
On February 28, 1982, Ms. Nieman was arrested for driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. She refused to submit to a chemical sobriety test. After continuances of both the criminal preliminary hearing and the administrative revocation hearing, Ms. Nieman's request for a second continuance of the administrative hearing until after the preliminary hearing was denied. As a result of her refusal to submit to a chemical sobriety test, the Department of Public Safety revoked her driving privileges for one year. See SDCL 32-23-11. * The revocation occurred before Nieman's preliminary hearing on the D.W.I. charge. Upon petition, Nieman was granted a trial de novo in circuit court pursuant to SDCL 32-23-12. The circuit court reversed the revocation of driving privileges, concluding as a matter of law that the South Dakota Department of Public Safety could not revoke a person's driving privileges until a preliminary hearing is held and the person arrested has had a reasonable opportunity to plead either guilty or not guilty. We disagree.
Revocation of driving privileges for refusing a blood-alcohol test is unquestionably legitimate, assuming appropriate procedural protections. South Dakota v. Neville, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983). In amending SDCL 32-23-11 in 1980 to allow a driver to escape license revocation by pleading guilty before an administrative revocation hearing has taken place, the legislature did not require the Department of Public Safety to coordinate its civil revocation proceedings with any possible criminal prosecution. 1980 S.D.Sess.Laws, ch. 230, Sec. 3; now see SDCL 32-23-11.1. Nor does this statute or due process require the Department of Public Safety to postpone revocation until a preliminary hearing is held. We see no reason to read such a requirement into the statute.
If Ms. Nieman had wished to plead guilty she could have waived the preliminary hearing and entered her plea at the initial court appearance or before any of the continuances long...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Revocation of Driver's License of Olien, Matter of, 14662
...This case however, is an appeal from a civil administrative proceeding to revoke Olien's driver's license. See Nieman v. Dept. of Public Safety, 339 N.W.2d 795 (S.D.1983); In re Mehrer, 273 N.W.2d 194 (S.D.1979). Hence, Olien was not protected by the right not to give evidence against himse......
-
Malone, Matter of
...local magistrate in dealing with dismissals of the criminal charges." 273 N.W.2d at 197. Most recently, in Nieman v. South Dakota Dep't of Public Safety, 339 N.W.2d 795 (S.D.1983), we reversed a circuit court decision which held that the Department of Public Safety could not revoke a person......