Evening star., 1953-12-08
Pretty Hioh-Honded

Judge David A. Pine has used sharp Ian
guage-and rightly so-in forbddng traffic
authorities to revoke drivers license until
the accused man has either been convicted or
given fair hearing by an appropriate ad-
ministrative tribunal"
The accused man in this case is Wilbur E.
Wilson, an automobile mechanic, who has been
charged with driving while drunk
AS is so often true, conflicting interests are
involved. On the one hand there is the public
interest-the right of the public to be protected
against the menace of drunken drivers. It is
on this ground-on the assumption that man
accused of drunken driving may be a continu-
Ing menace to the public-that driving licenses
are revoked prior to a conviction.
On the other hand there is the right of
an individual (and some accused drivers are
acquitted to be protected against what the
court in this case, referred to as the arbitrary
and unauthorized" acts of the traffic authori-
ties.
Let us look at some of the practical aspects
of this particular case The court found that
Mr.. Wilson has been driving car for 35 years
and in all that time has been convicted of but
one minor traffic violation. The court also
found that "losS of his permit would auto
matically mean the loss of his livelihood" This
certainly would be a severe penalty. Consider
penalty which loss of his license would impose
on him, does the protection of the public inter-
est require that he be removed from the streets
as motorist prior to his trial on the drunken
driving charge? In this connection the sequence
of events is interesting.
He was charged with drunken driving on
November l. 1t was not until November % that
he was served with the first-and alegedly er-
roneous-notice that his permit had been re-
voked. Thus what presumably were normal
procedural delays permitted him to drive for
three weeks after being charged. Traffic Direc-
tor George E. Keneipp says, however, that this
first notice resulted from clerical error. The
proper notice. according to Mr.. Keneipp, was
sent out on November .27 The effect of this
was to notify Mr.. Wilson that his permit would
be revoked unless he applied for hearing
within five days. And although there is some
dispute about it, Mr.. Keneipp sayS-and this
is signif1cant-that Mr.. Wilson would not have
lost his permit until after the hearing, which
In the normal course of events certainly could
not have been held until some time in De-
cember.
Mr. Wilson'S trial has been set for Decem-
Der %, however and Judge Pine found that
"he has not requested nor does he intend to
request" any continuance of the trial. The
point is that this sequence of events reduces
10 all dDSurQlCy Cne claim CndC Cne pubic IN
terest was being protected in any important
degree by the procedure followed in this case.
Mr.. Wilson was charged with drunken driving
on November /. On the basis of Mr. Keneipps
own statements he could have continued to
drive until some time in December. Since he
would have been tried on December %, and
since his permit, even if revoked would have
been restored upon acquittal of the trial why
not wait until after the trial before deciding
whether to revoke the permit?
There are few other things to be con-
sidered. One is that Mr.. Kenepp has told The
Star that he knows of no instance in which
the revocation of permit, based upon the
automatic accumulation of II points" as a
result of a drunken driving charge, has been
set aside after an administrative hearing"
This would seem to justify Judge Pines view
that these hearings are "a mere formality or
pretense." Another thing is that Mr. Keneipp
contends that he has the power, although he
does not exercise it. to revoke or suspend per-
mtS without any hearing where he deems it
necessary for public safety.
There is nothing in the record of the Wilson
caSe-and Judge Pines decision applies only to
this caSe-which suggests that the protection of
the public juStifieS either the procedure fol-
lowed in this instance or the powers claimed
by Mr.. Keneipp. If Mr.. Keneipp is correct, how
ever, with respect to either his defense of the
procedure or his claim of power question is
raised for consideration by the District Com
miSSionerS. They should ask themselves whether
an accused but unconvicted motoriSt is not en-
titled to at least the same presumption of inno-
cence and the same procedural safeguards which
we extend to persons accused, but not convicted
OF such crimes as manSlaughter robbery and
feloniouS assault.