In the Matter of the Driver's License Suspension of: Jesse Leroy Herrmann
STATE OF IDAHO, IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellant. JESSE LEROY HERRMANN, Petitioner-Respondent,
Opinion No. 44
from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State
of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John R. Stegner, District
of the district court, acting in its appellate capacity,
setting aside Idaho Transportation Department's denial of
request for administrative license suspension hearing,
K. Servick, Coeur d'Alene, for appellant.
E. Siebe, Moscow, for respondent.
GRATTON, CHIEF JUDGE
Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) appeals from the
district court's decision setting aside ITD's denial
of Jesse Leroy Herrmann's request for an administrative
license suspension hearing. ITD determined that
Herrmann's request was untimely. We affirm the district
court's determination that the request was timely.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
failed an evidentiary breath test on Sunday, December 6,
2015, and was arrested and charged with driving under the
influence of alcohol. Herrmann was served with a notice of
suspension for failure of evidentiary testing, advising him
that ITD would suspend his driving privileges unless he filed
a written request for an administrative hearing within seven
calendar days from the date of the notice. Herrmann filed a
request for administrative hearing with ITD by facsimile on
Monday, December 14, 2015, eight calendar days from service.
ITD concluded the request was not timely filed and denied
Herrmann's request. Thereafter, Herrmann filed a petition
for judicial review with the district court. Following a
hearing, the district court set aside ITD's decision and
remanded the administrative license suspension to ITD for the
purpose of conducting an administrative license suspension
hearing. ITD timely appeals.
Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) governs the
review of ITD decisions to deny, cancel, suspend, disqualify,
revoke, or restrict a person's driver's license.
See I.C. §§ 49-201, 49-330, 67-5201(2),
67-5270. In an appeal from the decision of the district court
acting in its appellate capacity under the IDAPA, this Court
reviews the agency record independently of the district
court's decision. Marshall v. Idaho Dep't of
Transp., 137 Idaho 337, 340, 48 P.3d 666, 669 (Ct. App.
2002). This Court does not substitute its judgment for that
of the agency as to the weight of the evidence presented.
I.C. § 67-5279(1); Marshall, 137 Idaho at 340,
48 P.3d at 669. This Court instead defers to the agency's
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.
Castaneda v. Brighton Corp., 130 Idaho 923, 926, 950
P.2d 1262, 1265 (1998); Marshall, 137 Idaho at 340,
48 P.3d at 669. In other words, the agency's factual
determinations are binding upon the reviewing court, even
where there is conflicting evidence before the agency, so
long as the determinations are supported by substantial and
competent evidence in the record. Urrutia v. Blaine
Cnty., ex rel. Bd. of Comm'rs, 134 Idaho 353, 357, 2
P.3d 738, 742 (2000); Marshall, 137 Idaho at 340, 48
P.3d at 669.
Court may overturn an agency's decision where its
findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions violate
statutory or constitutional provisions; exceed the
agency's statutory authority; are made upon unlawful
procedure; are not supported by substantial evidence in the
record; or are arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of
discretion. I.C. § 67-5279(3). The party challenging the
agency decision must demonstrate that the agency erred in a
manner specified in I.C. § 67-5279(3) and that a
substantial right of that party has been prejudiced.
Price v. Payette Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 131
Idaho 426, 429, 958 P.2d 583, 586 (1998); Marshall,