Lescher v. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida held that eliminating hardship-license eligibility for individuals whose driver's licenses were permanently revoked after four DUI convictions did not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws. Applying the Hudson v. United States factors, the court concluded that the license-revocation and hardship-license provisions were civil and regulatory rather than criminal punishment. The court answered the certified question in the negative and approved the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision.

Holdings

1. The ex post facto prohibition applies only to criminal or penal provisions; it does not invalidate a retrospective change that operates within a civil regulatory licensing scheme.
2. Permanent revocation of a driver's license after four DUI convictions and the elimination of eligibility for a hardship license are civil regulatory measures, not criminal punishment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amendment eliminating hardship driver's licenses for persons whose licenses were permanently revoked after four DUI convictions violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws when applied to a person who could have applied for a hardship license before the amendment became effective.
2. Whether permanent driver's-license revocation and the unavailability of a hardship license under sections 322.28(2)(e) and 322.271(4), Florida Statutes, constitute criminal punishment rather than civil regulatory measures.

Disposition

approved