Summary
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reviewed the reversal of a DMV license-revocation order arising from a DUI arrest. The court held that a statement of the arresting officer in the DMV’s possession was admissible in the administrative hearing under West Virginia Code § 29A-5-2(b) and, together with the officer’s testimony, established that the arrest occurred within the officer’s jurisdiction. The court reversed the circuit court’s order.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a Statement of Arresting Officer submitted to and possessed by the DMV is admissible in a DMV administrative hearing under West Virginia Code § 29A-5-2(b).
- Whether the statement, together with the arresting officer's testimony, sufficiently established that the arrest occurred within the officer's jurisdiction.
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by reversing the DMV Commissioner's revocation order.
Holdings
- In a DMV administrative hearing, a statement of an arresting officer described in West Virginia Code § 17C-5A-1(b), if in the DMV's possession and offered into evidence by the DMV, is admissible under West Virginia Code § 29A-5-2(b).
- The Statement of Arresting Officer, considered together with the arresting officer's testimony, established by a preponderance of the evidence that Crouch was arrested within Mabscott and within the officer's jurisdiction.
- The circuit court abused its discretion by reversing the Commissioner's revocation order.
Key quotations
“Based upon the foregoing analysis, we now hold that, in an administrative hearing conducted by the Division of Motor Vehicles, a statement of an arresting officer, as described in W. Va.Code § 17C-5A-l(b) (2004) (Repl.Vol.2004), that is in the possession of the Division and is offered into evidence on behalf of the Division, is admissible pursuant to W. Va.Code § 29A-5-2(b) (1964) (Repl. Vol.2002).” (219 W. Va. at 76)
“In the instant case, the “Statement of Arresting Officer,” which was properly admitted into evidence in the administrative hearing, along with the testimony of Officer Kerr, establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Crouch was arrested within the city limits of Mabscott, West Virginia, and within Officer Kerr’s jurisdiction.” (219 W. Va. at 77)
Factual background
Officer J.M. Kerr observed Jackie L. Crouch driving erratically, including entering ditches, weaving, failing to signal, and nearly striking a utility pole. After Crouch displayed signs of intoxication, refused field sobriety tests, failed a preliminary breath test, and refused an Intoxilyzer test, Kerr arrested her for DUI. Kerr submitted a sworn Statement of Arresting Officer to the DMV identifying the arrest location as Walker Street in Mabscott, while his hearing testimony did not expressly state that the streets were within Mabscott. The DMV Commissioner relied on the statement and testimony to find that Kerr had jurisdiction to make the arrest.
Procedural history
After Crouch was arrested for second-offense DUI and refused a secondary chemical test, the DMV Commissioner revoked her driving privilege for six months based on driving under the influence, but imposed no additional revocation for the refusal. Crouch appealed to the Raleigh County Circuit Court, which reversed the Commissioner's order because the arresting officer's testimony did not expressly establish that the arrest occurred within Mabscott. The DMV appealed, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the circuit court.