1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 123,931

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

MELISSA SCHRAND,

Appellee,

v.

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; WILLIAM P. MAHONEY, judge. Opinion filed October 7, 

2022. Affirmed.

Nhu Nguyen, of Legal Services Bureau, Kansas Department of Revenue, for appellant.

Bruce D. Mayfield, of Bruce D. Mayfield, Chartered, of Overland Park, for appellee.

Before HURST, P.J., HILL and ATCHESON, JJ.

PER CURIAM: The Kansas Department of Revenue appeals a district court's

reversal of the Department's order suspending the driving license of Melissa Schrand. 

The Department claims the court abused its discretion because it has no burden of proof 

at a judicial review of an administrative driving license suspension. The burden is on the 

petitioner. The Department had agreed to subpoena the police officers for the hearing on 

Schrand's petition for judicial review. After the police officers involved in the case, for 

the second time, failed to honor the court's subpoenas and appear in court to give 

testimony, Schrand was effectively denied her legal right to judicial review of an 
2

administrative action. We see no abuse of discretion by the court reversing the driving 

suspension order. We affirm. 

Schrand refuses a breath alcohol test.

Schrand was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence in September 

2018. Schrand refused a breath test and Kansas City, Kansas police officers provided her 

with an Officer's Certification and Notice of Suspension, also known as Form DC-27. 

The form was certified by three officers: Brett Bradfield, Yeng Vang, and Ken Garrett.

Schrand requested an administrative hearing on her license suspension. Following 

a hearing, the hearing officer affirmed Schrand's driving license suspension and issued an 

administrative order suspending her license. The hearing officer noted that Schrand 

admitted to having a drink, had slurred speech and bloodshot eyes, smelled of alcohol, 

and failed field sobriety tests.

Schrand asked the district court to either dismiss the Department's suspension of 

her driving license or, in the alternative, conduct a judicial review of the administrative 

hearing order. In her petition, Schrand alleged that the officers did not have reasonable 

suspicion to request a preliminary breath test, did not have reasonable grounds to arrest 

her, and the officers did not correctly provide her the required notices according to 

Kansas law.

Schrand's hearing was set three times. In January 2020 the hearing was continued 

because all of the officers involved in Schrand's arrest failed to appear. This hearing was 

continued over Schrand's objection because she had traveled from Ohio to be present for 

the hearing. In March 2020 Schrand's hearing was continued because of the COVID-19 

pandemic. 
3

Schrand's final hearing date was in December 2020. Of the officers subpoenaed, 

only Officer Yang appeared. Only the Department had subpoenaed the officers, and 

Schrand relied on counsel's agreement that the Department would subpoena the officers. 

Schrand's attorney orally moved to dismiss the Department's suspension of Schrand's 

driving license because Officers Bradfield and Garrett failed to appear. 

Schrand's attorney explained that they needed Officer Garrett to make their case 

because he is the officer who "went through the PBT process," arrested her, provided the 

required notice to her, and transported her to the station. Schrand also alleged that Officer 

Garrett gave her notice and "gratuitous advice" that she did not understand and was 

relevant to her argument. 

The Department's attorney noted that Officer Vang—who appeared at the hearing

and was available to testify—interviewed Schrand, administered the field sobriety tests, 

wrote a report describing why they had probable cause to arrest, and was present for her 

arrest. The attorney also argued the court could rely on the officers' collective information 

if only Vang testified.

The district court said that it could not proceed with the hearing because two of the 

officers involved were unavailable. The court dismissed the Department's suspension of 

the driving license. The court also explained that it particularly trusted testimony from 

one of the officers who failed to appear based on past experiences, and it could not get 

the whole story without him there. The district court held that the officers' failure to 

appear deprived Schrand of her due process and right to present the facts to the court. 

On appeal, the Department argues that the district court erred by granting 

Schrand's motion to dismiss because of its witnesses' failure to appear since Schrand had 

the burden at the hearing. It also argues that the district court erred in granting Schrand 

relief after dismissing the petition for judicial review.
4

The district court acted properly.

Appeals from the administrative suspension of driving licenses are subject to 

review under the Kansas Judicial Review Act, K.S.A. 77-601 et seq. K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 

8-259(a); Rosendahl v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 310 Kan. 474, 480, 447 P.3d 347 

(2019). But appeals to the district court are de novo. Manzano v. Kansas Dept. of 

Revenue, 50 Kan. App. 2d 263, 267, 324 P.3d 321 (2014).

Under the K.S.A. 77-621(c), the district court may grant relief if the agency action 

violated constitutional rights, if the agency erroneously interpreted the law, if the agency 

procedure was unlawful, and if the agency action was otherwise unreasonable, arbitrary, 

or capricious. Manzano, 50 Kan. App. 2d at 267. On appeal, the burden of proving the 

invalidity of the agency action rests on the party asserting such invalidity. K.S.A. 77-

621(a)(1). This means that the burden was on Schrand to prove that the Department 

improperly suspended her license. 

Basically, the Department is arguing that it was up to Schrand to make her case 

and she took no steps to ensure that she could offer her evidence to the court at the 

hearing. The Department offers four points in support of its position: 

(1) Schrand had to make a diligent effort to bring in the officers; 

(2) there should be an inference that their testimony would have been adverse to 

Schrand; 

(3) Officer Vang could have testified to the officers' collective information; and

(4) the officers did not have to appear at the hearing because the Form DC-27 was 

admissible without them. 

In sum, the Department asks us to find that the district court abused its discretion by 

shifting the burden of proving the validity of the agency action to the State. 
5

Schrand argues that she relied on the Department's subpoenas to secure the 

officers' presence at the hearing. In fact, there is evidence in the record that the 

Department's attorney agreed to subpoena the officers. Schrand also included emails 

between her attorney and the Department's attorney in the appendix of her brief. But she 

did not request to add them to the record so we cannot consider them. See State v. 

Warren, 302 Kan. 601, 614, 356 P.3d 396 (2015).

The Department also relies on an unpublished Court of Appeals case in which the 

court found that the licensee had the opportunity to call the certifying officer to testify but 

chose not to. The court held that the Department "was under no obligation to call 

witnesses or present evidence for the purpose of satisfying [licensee's] burden of proof 

before the district court. Jennings v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, No. 114,916, 2016 WL 

4499587, at *2 (Kan. App. 2016) (unpublished opinion). 

We offer a note on professional responsibility. We do not take the Department's 

argument to mean that a licensee seeking judicial review of agency action cannot rely on 

the Department's attorney's agreement to subpoena its witnesses. And that Schrand 

should have also subpoenaed the witnesses to ensure their appearance. If that was the 

Department's argument, it would take us into far deeper waters than where we are now. 

Attorneys make agreements with other attorneys all the time to facilitate the practice of 

law. Attorneys should be able to rely on such promises. 

Schrand did have the burden of proof at the hearing. But unlike Jennings, there 

was an agreement that the Department would subpoena the officers and secure them for 

the hearing. Indeed, it subpoenaed the officers but two of them failed to appear for the 

hearing twice. Without the officers' testimony, Schrand could not make her case. Because 

of this agreement, the district court did not err in dismissing the Department's suspension 

of Schrand's driving license, even though only the Department subpoenaed the officers. 
6

Frankly, if the officers would not honor the Department's subpoenas, we see nothing in 

the record that shows they would have honored a subpoena submitted by Schrand. 

Something important is lost when officers dishonor subpoenas and fail to appear.

Suspension of driving licenses is a state action that adjudicates an important 

interest of the licensee. Driving licenses may not be taken away without the procedural 

due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

Due process does not require perfect procedure, but the fundamental requirement is the 

opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Kempke v. 

Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 281 Kan. 770, 776, 133 P.3d 104 (2006). 

Kansas law establishes a two-step procedure for the suspension of licenses: (1) the 

initial administrative hearing, and (2) a de novo hearing before the district court. Kempke, 

281 Kan. at 795. 

Schrand argues she was denied her second hearing which was necessary to receive 

due process. It was not Schrand's fault that the officers failed to appear. She notes that the 

key witness, Officer Garrett, failed to appear—and even the district court commented on 

the importance of his testimony. 

If the district court had conducted Schrand's hearing without Officers Bradfield 

and Garrett, Schrand might have been denied the opportunity to be heard meaningfully 

because she needed the officers' testimony to make her case. Although Officer Vang was 

present, Schrand said Officer Garrett was her key witness because he was the one who 

determined probable cause, arrested her, and gave her the required notices. And even 

though the Form DC-27 could be admitted without the officers, one of Schrand's 

arguments was about the verbal information Officer Garrett gave her, which could not be 

found on the form. 
7

Judicial review of agency actions should not be reduced to a make-do procedure 

with whoever decides to appear at hearings. If we were to rule otherwise, then a licensee 

could never have meaningful review because an officer could simply fail to appear at the 

hearing, as these two did, and the licensee could never make her case. That is unfair and 

unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion here. This ruling was the 

well-reasoned exercise of judicial discretion by an experienced jurist. 

The Department says that by dismissing the petition for judicial review, the district 

court lost its jurisdiction to grant Schrand relief and therefore could not grant the relief 

sought in Schrand's petition. Our review of the record does not reveal that the court, in 

fact, dismissed this petition before vacating the Department's suspension order. Actually, 

the Department asks this court to find that the district court had no jurisdiction and 

reverse its decision. The Department cites no authority to support this argument. Pressing 

a point without pertinent authority is like failing to brief an issue. We hold that issue is 

waived or abandoned. In re Care & Treatment of Sigler, 310 Kan. 688, Syl. ¶ 1, 448 P.3d 

368 (2019). 

Finally, citing K.S.A. 77-621(c), the Department contends the district court's order 

violates the Judicial Review Act. That statute states that a reviewing court can grant relief 

only if it finds one or more of the eight conditions listed in the statute applies to a case. 

Failing to honor subpoenas is not on that list of eight. 

This argument would be pertinent if the court had conducted a hearing on the 

merits of Schrand's petition for judicial review. But it did not because the failure of the 

police officers to appear at the hearing prevented such a hearing. Instead, K.S.A. 77-

622(b) applies here. That statute states that on final disposition, a court may "set aside or 

modify agency action." We see no reason to limit the court's choices in this situation to 

continue the hearing on this petition a fourth time. Enough is enough. 
8

The district court had the authority of law to reverse the Department's order 

suspending Schrand's driving license and acted with reasonable discretion. 

Affirmed.