Justus v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a private apartment-complex parking lot was not a "public parking lot" under Oklahoma's implied-consent statute. Because the lot was neither on a right-of-way dedicated to public use nor owned by the state or a political subdivision, the driver's refusal to submit to chemical testing could not support revocation of his license. The court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion and affirmed the district court's judgment.

Holdings

1. A parking lot is a public parking lot under 47 O.S. 2001 § 1-142(b) only if it is on a right-of-way dedicated to public use or is owned by the state or a political subdivision. Because the Quail Ridge parking lot satisfied neither category, it was not a public parking lot for purposes of the implied consent statute.
2. Because the arrest occurred in a parking lot that was not a public parking lot within the meaning of the implied consent statute, Justus's refusal to submit to chemical testing did not support revocation of his driver's license.
3. When the parties stipulate to the facts, the question whether the statute applies to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Quail Ridge Apartments parking lot was a public parking lot under Oklahoma's implied consent statute and the statutory definition in 47 O.S. 2001 § 1-142(b).
2. Whether Justus's refusal to submit to chemical testing supported revocation of his driver's license.

Disposition

vacated