Case Title: Lavinghouse v. MISS. HWY. SAFETY PATROL

Citation: 620 So. 2d 971

Docket Number: 91-CA-0041

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1993-06-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
620 So. 2d 971 (1993) Herman D. LAVINGHOUSE v. MISSISSIPPI HIGHWAY SAFETY PATROL. No. 91-CA-0041. Supreme Court of Mississippi. June 24, 1993. Terry M. Haimes, Louisville, for appellant. William H. Magnusen, Jr., Gulfport, for appellee. Before PRATHER, P.J., and BANKS and SMITH, JJ. PRATHER, Presiding Justice, for the Court: In this case, the appellant, Herman Lavinghouse, complains because the State of Mississippi suspended his driver's license in October 1990 after he refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. Only one issue merits discussion: Whether statutory law providing for pre-hearing suspension of a driver's license is violative of minimum due-process requirements? In Morgan v. Town of Heidelberg, 246 Miss. 481, 150 So. 2d 512, 514 (1963), this Court explained that "a license to operate a motor vehicle is a privilege granted by the State [and that] in accepting the license, *972 one must also accept all reasonable conditions imposed by the State in granting it." One of these "conditions" imposed upon a licensed driver is the giving of his or her consent to submit to a breathalyzer test when probable cause exists: Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-5(1) (1972). Statutory law delineates the steps that must be taken if a driver refuses to submit to a breathalyzer: Id. § 63-11-5(2). Id. § 63-11-21. The Public Safety Commissioner then examines the sworn report to verify compliance with each step of § 63-11-5. A verification of compliance will result in the suspension of the driver's license: Id. § 63-11-23(1). The driver whose license was suspended may file a petition for judicial review under § 63-11-25: In 1978, the United States Supreme Court examined a Massachusetts statute, which is similar to Mississippi's, and held that it did not violate minimum due-process requirements: "We conclude ... that the compelling interest in highway safety justifies ... a summary suspension effective pending the outcome of the prompt post-suspension hearing available." Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 19, 99 S. Ct. 2612, 2621, 61 L. Ed. 2d 321, 335 (1979). One notable distinction exists between Mississippi statutory law and Massachusetts statutory law. Under Mississippi law, a driver who refuses to submit to a breathalyzer test is issued a "temporary driving permit" by the arresting officer immediately upon confiscation and suspension of his or her driver's license. This permit is valid for at least 30 days. See Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-23(1) (Supp. 1992). The Mississippi Department of Public Safety extends the validity of the permit to 45 days. See Miss.Dep't of Public Safety "Receipt for Driver License and Temporary Driving Permit" (temporary permit provided driver by arresting officer). Thus, a Mississippi driver whose license is suspended is not actually deprived of a protected property right before he or she is provided an opportunity to be heard. Be that as it may, under Mackey, Mississippi's statute is unquestionably constitutional. Based on the foregoing analysis, this Court affirms and holds that statutory law providing for pre-hearing suspension of a driver's license is not violative of minimum due-process requirements. AFFIRMED. HAWKINS, C.J., and SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS, McRAE, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., and SMITH, JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, P.J., concurs in result only.