Thompson v. State Dept. of Licensing
| Decision Date | 19 August 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 67225-3.,67225-3. |
| Citation | 982 P.2d 601,138 Wash.2d 783 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Clayton THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Washington DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING, Respondent. |
Brungardt & Lowe, Bruce Finlay, Shelton, for Petitioner.
Christine Gregoire, Attorney General, Sharon S. Eckholm, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, for Respondent.
We must decide in this case if an allegedly erroneous decision in a criminal proceeding, from which the State declined to appeal, has preclusive effect in a subsequent administrative action by a State agency against the same individual. Applying our traditional test for collateral estoppel, we hold the decision in the criminal proceeding precludes a different decision in a subsequent administrative action on the same issue. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the trial court to direct the Department to reverse the license disqualification.
Did the trial court properly refuse to apply collateral estoppel to the admissibility of the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test results suppressed in an earlier criminal proceeding in a later license disqualification proceeding?
Clayton Thompson is a commercial truck driver. In the late afternoon of February 24, 1995, he was the subject of a random commercial vehicle check at a weigh scale on I-5 near Ridgefield. At the scale, a State Patrol trooper observed Thompson's red, watery eyes. Thompson also smelled of stale alcohol. The trooper asked Thompson if he had consumed alcoholic beverages and Thompson answered he had early that morning. The trooper then asked Thompson to take a portable breath test.1 A second trooper, who also noted Thompson's watery, red eyes and the odor of alcohol, administered the portable breath test. The second trooper then summoned a third trooper, Helen Holland, who first administered field sobriety tests to Thompson. Although she reported he showed "no impairment," Report of Proceedings at 68, she noted he did poorly on two of the six tests.
Holland then administered a BAC test to Thompson after giving him two different informed consent warnings, the driving while under influence (DUI) warning pursuant to RCW 46.20.308, and the specific warning for operators of commercial vehicles pursuant to RCW 46.25.120. Holland explained the differences in the warnings to Thompson who expressed no confusion about them. He did, however, express concern about the effect of the arrest on his job. Nevertheless, he signed two forms, thereby acknowledging the respective warnings he received. Holland obtained readings of 0.07 and 0.08. She also asked Thompson if he had been drinking, and he replied he had drunk a half a quart of whiskey at his home the previous evening between 7:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m.
The State undertook two separate proceedings against Thompson. The Clark County prosecutor filed charges against Thompson in Clark County District Court for violation of RCW 46.25.170(2), driving a commercial vehicle with alcohol in one's system, a gross misdemeanor. The Department of Licensing (Department) also began administrative commercial license disqualification proceedings. Disqualification from driving a commercial motor vehicle occurs pursuant to RCW 46.25.090(1) whenever the Department receives a report from a law enforcement agency that a holder of a commercial driver's license was driving a commercial motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more, or refused to take a breath test.
In the district court proceeding, Thompson moved to suppress the BAC evidence on the grounds there was no probable cause to detain and test him, and because the informed consent warnings he received were confusing. The district court granted Thompson's motion to suppress the BAC results, stating the informed consent warnings were "confusing and misleading, and would have prevented a completely intelligent decision." Clerk's Papers at 12. Although the record is silent, the gross misdemeanor case was apparently dismissed upon the suppression of the BAC results and the State did not appeal.
The subsequent administrative proceeding had a different course. Because Thompson's BAC result was above 0.04, the Department disqualified his license.2 He sought a hearing pursuant to RCW 46.25.120(5)3 on his disqualification from driving commercial motor vehicles.
At the hearing,4 Thompson stipulated to the accuracy of the BAC readings, but argued the BAC evidence was not admissible because of collateral estoppel stemming from the district court judge's ruling suppressing the BAC evidence in the criminal case. The hearing examiner rejected Thompson's collateral estoppel argument on the ground the burden of proof in an administrative hearing is different from the burden of proof in a criminal trial.
Thompson also argued there was no probable cause to test him, and the implied consent warnings were confusing. The hearing examiner heard evidence from the three troopers involved in the incident and ultimately ruled against Thompson. The hearing examiner found probable cause based on the odor of alcohol and Thompson's admission he had been drinking the night before. The hearing examiner also rejected Thompson's argument the implied consent warnings were confusing, although she did suggest the combined warnings were "overkill." Clerk's Papers at 83-85. The hearing examiner said:
The fact that Mr. Thompson was read the commercial driver licensing warnings is what I am concerned with. He was. He signed them, and what's really lacking here is for me to find in your favor, Mr Finlay [Thompson's attorney], is that the reading of both warnings confused your client, and he expressed any confusion to Trooper Holland. That's missing here, and on any implied consent cases that involve a problem with the warnings that are read to a person, as you well know if you've done implied consent cases, that confusion has to be expressed. And I did not hear any mention of that from Trooper Holland in her proceedings of presenting the forms to Mr. Thompson for signature. I didn't hear any concerns about questions that he had, such as "Wait a minute here, what am I being charged with?", and I don't find any irreparable harm that was done by reading both sets of warnings. I think you have to have .... you have to have an effect that was felt on your client at the time, for you to come into a hearing procedure and say, well, this was wrong. It may have been wrong in proper reading of implied consent warnings, but your client was still read the appropriate warnings, had no questions, apparently, about it, and proceeded with the test, so I'm not going to cancel a proceeding based on an argument that he was read too much, or something he shouldn't have been read, when he has shown no argument about how that affected him.
Clerk's Papers at 84-85. As a result of the hearing, the Department issued an Order of Disqualification, disqualifying Thompson from driving a commercial vehicle for one year.
Thompson then petitioned the Clark County Superior Court for review of the Order of Disqualification. RCW 46.20.334; RCW 46.25.120(5). After a de novo evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law upholding the Department's determination. Thompson appealed to the Court of Appeals, Division Two.
Before the Court of Appeals, Thompson assigned error to the trial court's failure to apply collateral estoppel to the determination by the district court to suppress the BAC test results because of the confusing implied consent warnings. He also assigned error to the trial court's finding of fact that Trooper Holland had probable cause to believe Thompson was driving a commercial vehicle with alcohol in his system. Br. of Appellant at 5-6. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision. Thompson v. Department of Licensing, 91 Wash.App. 887, 960 P.2d 475 (1998). The Court of Appeals refused to apply collateral estoppel because Thompson failed to show he was prejudiced by the implied consent warnings. The Court of Appeals concluded the district court therefore made an erroneous legal decision by suppressing the evidence of the BAC test results, and collateral estoppel was not applicable. Thompson, 960 P.2d at 480. With regard to the probable cause issue, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that Thompson's red and watery eyes, odor of alcohol, and admission of recent whiskey drinking constituted probable cause to conduct the BAC tests. Id. at 479. Thompson sought review here, identifying as his sole issue whether the Court of Appeals erred in declining to apply collateral estoppel to prevent the admission of the BAC evidence. We granted review.
Thompson claims the hearing examiner and the superior court should have applied collateral estoppel to the suppression ruling by the district court in his criminal trial and thereby prevented evidence of his BAC test results from being introduced into evidence in his commercial driver's license disqualification proceedings. We have recently set forth the test for application of collateral estoppel:
Before the doctrine of collateral estoppel may be applied, the party asserting the doctrine must prove: (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical with the one presented in the second action; (2) the prior adjudication must have ended in a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with the party to the prior adjudication; and (4) application of the doctrine does not work an injustice.
Nielson v. Spanaway Gen. Med. Clinic, Inc., 135 Wash.2d 255, 262-63, 956 P.2d 312 (1998). See also State v. Williams, 132 Wash.2d 248, 254, 937 P.2d 1052 (1997)
applying this test, we examine each of the requirements in order.
The first part of the collateral estoppel analysis asks if the issue decided...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips 66 Co. v. Sacks
...Phillips 66's fear is well-founded, erroneous decisions are still entitled to issue preclusion. See Thompson v. State, Dep't of Licensing , 138 Wash.2d 783, 982 P.2d 601, 610 (1999) ("[W]here ... a party to the prior litigation had a full and fair hearing of the issues ... collateral estopp......
- State v. Robinson
-
Sluman v. State
...the parties to the earlier proceeding received a full and fair hearing on the issue in question. Thompson v. Department of Licensing , 138 Wash.2d 783, 795-96, 982 P.2d 601 (1999). Accordingly, a criminal conviction after a trial may, under certain circumstances, be given preclusive effect ......
-
Billings v. Town of Steilacoom
...incentive to litigate issues even though the remedies available in the two arenas were not identical." Thompson v. Dep't of Licensing , 138 Wash.2d 783, 796, 982 P.2d 601 (1999). Thompson noted, "the unfairness of permitting an adjudication in an informal administrative setting, for example......
-
Horizontal federalism in an age of criminal justice interconnectedness.
...change that increased the value element triggering felony status), overuled on other grounds by Thompson v. State Dep't of Licensing, 982 P.2d 601 (Wash. 1999). But see Lee v. State, 673 P.2d 892, 894 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983) (rejecting a prior grand larceny conviction based on a subsequent s......