In the Matter of the Suspension of the Driving Privileges of Daniel Boyd Cole v. Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Branch (DMV); Karen Dinsmore v. Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Branch (DMV), 336 Or. 565

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oregon reviewed consolidated driver-license suspension proceedings involving hearsay police reports offered at administrative hearings. It held that hearsay may constitute substantial evidence under Oregon administrative law, but whether it does so depends on a case-specific assessment of reliability, countervailing evidence, cross-examination, available alternatives, economy, consequences, and fundamental fairness. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals in Cole on different grounds and remanded for further proceedings, and affirmed the Court of Appeals, reversed the DMV order, and remanded in Dinsmore.

Holdings

1. Hearsay evidence is not categorically incapable of constituting substantial evidence under ORS 183.482(8)(c). Whether hearsay is substantial evidence depends on a case-specific evaluation of the evidence and surrounding circumstances, including the Reguero factors.
2. Gurkman's police report constituted substantial evidence supporting the finding that Cole was lawfully stopped and arrested for DUII, because the report was prepared in the ordinary course of official duties, no evidence challenged its account, and Cole offered no contradictory evidence.
3. Cole's due-process rights were violated because DMV failed to provide him the stopping officer's name or report before introducing the report at the hearing, depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to subpoena and cross-examine the officer.
4. The police and accident-reconstruction reports offered at Dinsmore's hearing did not constitute substantial evidence supporting the finding that she operated her vehicle recklessly or with criminal negligence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether hearsay evidence may constitute substantial evidence supporting an agency finding under ORS 183.482(8)(c).
2. Whether the hearsay police report in Cole constituted substantial evidence that Cole had been lawfully stopped and arrested for DUII.
3. Whether DMV violated Cole's due-process rights by failing to disclose the stopping officer's identity and report before introducing the report at the hearing.
4. Whether the police and accident-reconstruction reports in Dinsmore constituted substantial evidence supporting findings of recklessness or criminal negligence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded