Case Name: John P. DODSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2013-07-26
Citations: 120 So. 3d 69
Docket Number: No. 1D12-5321
Parties: John P. DODSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent.
Judges: PADOVANO, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 120
Pages: 69–70

Head Matter:
John P. DODSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent.
No. 1D12-5321.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
July 26, 2013.
David M. Robbins and Susan Z. Cohen of Epstein & Robbins, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.
Damaris E. Reynolds, Lake Worth, for Respondent.

Opinion:
ON MOTION TO ENFORCE THIS COURT'S MANDATE AND FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION
PER CURIAM.
In a prior proceeding, this Court quashed the lower court decision that found a hearing officer did not depart from the essential requirements of the law during the petitioner's driver's license suspension hearing. The petitioner, John Dodson, has now filed a Motion to Enforce This Court's Mandate and for a Writ of Prohibition. In sum, petitioner seeks an order from this Court directing the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the Department) to invalidate the petitioner's driver's license suspension. In this instance, the remedy sought is not warranted. This Court quashed the decision of the lower court because the hearing officer did not consider the lawfulness of the arrest. See Dodson v. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, Case No. 1D12-5321 (Fla. 1st DCA June 2013). We remand this case to the circuit court whereupon by either party's filing of a proper motion, the case shall be remanded to the Department for a new hearing that meets the essential requirements of the law. This is an action consistent with the law. See Broward Cnty. v. G.B.V. Int'l Ltd., 787 So.2d 838, 843-44 (Fla.2011) (finding that an appellate court only determines whether or not the tribunal or administrative authority's order or judgment has departed from the essential requirements of the law); see also Clay Cnty. v. Kendale Land Dev., Inc., 969 So.2d 1177, 1180-81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (finding that when the appellate court is considering a petition for writ of certiorari, it has only two options — deny or grant the petition, and quash the order at which the petition is directed).
DENIED.
PADOVANO, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.