Section 302.535 specifically provides that any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the department of revenue to revoke or suspend a driver's license may file a petition for a trial de novo in the circuit court. Having determined that sections 479.500 and 302.535 are valid as implemented, this Court turns to the question of whether Ressel and Dabin were afforded due process under sections 479.500 and 302.535 as they were applied in these cases. Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of 'liberty' or 'property' interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment. Due process applies to the suspension or revocation of a driver's license by the state. The due process clause requires a 'meaningful' hearing in which consideration of all elements essential to the decision as to whether a license to operate a vehicle may be suspended are considered.
Due process contemplates the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time in a meaningful manner.
Due process also requires that in order to deprive a person of a property interest, the government must give notice and provide an opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. A meaningful opportunity for a hearing before a circuit court in the cases of Ressel and Dabin includes a reasonable time in which to challenge the findings of the traffic judge. Ressel and Dabin were not afforded an opportunity to challenge the commissioner's findings of facts in a meaningful manner. The presiding judge entered judgment based on the traffic court commissioner's findings the very day that the commissioner entered findings of facts in Ressel's case. In Dabin's case, the presiding judge entered the commissioner's findings of facts as the judgment of the court on the following day.