Title: Hedrick v. Commissioner of Dept. of Public Safety
Citation: 2013 OK 98
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: November 26, 2013

Hedrick v. Commissioner of Dept. of Public Safety Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary The Department of Public Safety (DPS) revoked Plaintiff-Appellant Kevin Hedrick's driver's license for 180 days following his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants. He filed an appeal with the District Court and attached a photocopy of the order which DPS mailed to him when it revoked his license. DPS objected to the trial court's jurisdiction, arguing that Hedrick had not provided the trial court with a certified copy of its revocation order. DPS refused to provide a certified copy, insisting that it was under no obligation to do so. The trial court dismissed the appeal, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether a certified copy of a DPS order was required to perfect an appeal of a DPS revocation to the district court; and whether the appeal was timely. Upon review, the Court held that that 47 O.S. Supp. 2007 section 2-111 expressly deems photocopies of DPS records to be considered originals for all purposes and to be admissible as evidence in all courts. Also, pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 section 3004(3), a certified copy of the DPS order was not required. Furthermore, the appeal was timely. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Oklahoma Supreme Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Oklahoma Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . HEDRICK v. COMMISSIONER OF DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY 2013 OK 98 Case Number: 110199 Decided: 11/26/2013 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. KEVIN HEDRICK, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant/Appellee. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS DIVISION I Honorable Gary Barger, Trial Judge ¶0 The Department of Public Safety (DPS) revoked Kevin Hedrick's driver's license for 180 days following his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants. He filed an appeal with the District Court of McClain County and attached a photocopy of the order which DPS mailed to him when it revoked his license. DPS objected to the trial court's jurisdiction, arguing that Hedrick had not provided the trial court with a certified copy of its revocation order. DPS refused to provide a certified copy, insisting that it was under no obligation to do so. The trial court dismissed the appeal, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari to address whether a certified copy of a DPS order is required to perfect an appeal of a DPS revocation to the district court; and whether the appeal was timely. We hold that 47 O.S. Supp. 2007 §2-111 expressly deems photocopies of DPS records to be considered originals for all purposes and to be admissible as evidence in all courts. Also, pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 §3004(3), a certified copy of the DPS order was not required. We also hold that the appeal was timely. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED. Michael L. Gardner, Purcell, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant. A. Deann Taylor, (Former) Assistant General Counsel, Department of Public Safety, Brian K. Morton, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Public Safety, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee. KAUGER, J.: ¶1 The dispositive issues are whether the holder of a driver's license brought a timely appeal to challenge his driver's license revocation and whether he was required to provide the district court with a certified copy of a Department of Public Safety (DPS) revocation order when he appealed the revocation. We hold that: the appeal was timely; 47 O.S. Supp. 2007 §2-111 expressly deems photocopies of DPS records to be considered originals for all purposes and admissible as evidence in all courts;1 and that pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 §3004(3), a certified copy of the DPS order was not required.2 FACTS ¶2 The defendant/appellant, Kevin B. Hedrick (Hedrick) was arrested for driving under the influence in McClain County, Oklahoma. Details as to the date and circumstances surrounding the arrest are not provided in the record.3 DPS held a hearing on September 2, 2009, and determined that Hedrick's driving privileges should be revoked for 180 days. DPS mailed Hedrick a copy of its revocation order on September 23, 2009. On October 30, 2009, Hedrick filed an appeal of the DPS revocation to the District Court of McClain County and attached a copy of the DPS revocation order which DPS had mailed him. Hedrick sought to set aside the revocation, or in the alternative, have it modified based on extreme and usual hardship. ¶3 When the matter came for trial on February 2, 2010, DPS objected to the trial court's jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Hedrick had not provided a certified copy of its order to the trial court. DPS also argued that the appeal was untimely, because it was filed thirty-seven days after it mailed the order to Hedrick.4 At the trial, DPS acknowledged that it issues thousands of these orders, but insisted that unless Hedrick provided a certified copy of the order, the trial court could not review the matter. ¶4 Hedrick's attorney asked the DPS lawyer if she had a certified copy and she said it was not her burden to show that Hedrick had a right to be in the district court or that his appeal was timely. When the trial court asked if it could take judicial notice of the official business records of DPS, DPS contended that if it were not a certified copy, it was not sufficient evidence.5 DPS insisted that it was Hedrick's burden and that DPS was not required to provide a certified copy of its administrative order. The trial court recessed the matter and instructed the parties to submit briefs on the issues. ¶5 DPS submitted a brief on February 22, 2010, and Hedrick replied on March 22, 2010. On April 12, 2010, the matter was assigned to another trial judge, but nothing happened in the cause until nearly eighteen months later when DPS filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. Hedrick's lawyer responded, explaining that: 1) the trial court did not reset the hearing; 2) all of his cases at DPS were reset because of DPS's shortage of attorneys; and 3) he was willing to get a court date, but DPS had not cooperated on setting a date. ¶6 On October 5, 2011, the trial court dismissed the case because Hedrick did not provide a certified copy of the DPS revocation order. It determined that: 1) Hedrick had the burden of proving jurisdiction and an uncertified copy of the DPS order was incomplete evidence to establish jurisdiction; and 2) the appeal was untimely. On October 17, 2011, Hedrick filed a motion to reconsider which the trial court denied on November 14, 2011. ¶7 On December 14, 2011, Hedrick appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals in an unpublished opinion affirmed on May 10, 2013,6 holding that, while the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the case,7 the photocopy of the DPS order was incompetent to establish that DPS ever revoked Hedrick's driver's license under 47 O.S. Supp. 2006 §6-211(F).8 Certiorari was granted on October 14, 2013, and assigned to these chambers. I. TITLE 47 O.S. SUPP. 2007 §2-111 EXPRESSLY DEEMS PHOTOCOPIES OF DPS RECORDS TO BE CONSIDERED ORIGINALS FOR ALL PURPOSES AND ADMISSABLE AS EVIDENCE IN ALL COURTS. ALSO PURSUANT TO 12 O.S. 2011 §3004(3), A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DPS ORDER WAS NOT REQUIRED. A. ¶8 DPS contends that unless Hedrick attached a certified copy of its order to his petition in the district court, his appeal could not be perfected in the trial court. It insists that the photocopy of DPS's revocation submitted with his petition to the district court was incompetent evidence because it was neither certified, nor submitted with a certificate, pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 §30059 or 12 O.S. 2011 §2902.10 Hedrick argues that the copy he attached to his district court petition need not be a certified copy. He relies on an exception to these requirements, found at 12 O.S. 2011 §3004(3), which provides in pertinent part: The original is not required, and a duplicate or other evidence of the contents of a record is admissible if: …. 3. At a time when an original was under the control of the party against whom offered, the party was put on notice, by the pleadings or otherwise, that the contents would be a subject of proof at the hearings and the party does not produce the original at the hearing… Although neither party mentions 47 O.S. Supp. 2007 §2-111, we take judicial notice of the statute11 which provides in pertinent part: C. 1. The Commissioner may cause any or all records kept by the Department of Public Safety to be photographed, microphotographed, photostated, reproduced on film, or stored on computer storage medium. The film or reproducing material shall be of durable material, and the device used to reproduce the records on the film or reproducing material shall accurately reproduce and perpetuate the original records in all detail. 2. The photostatic copy, photograph, microphotograph, photographic film or computerized image of the original records shall be deemed to be an original record for all purposes and shall be admissible as evidence in all courts or administrative agencies. A facsimile, exemplification, or certified copy thereof shall be deemed to be a transcript, exemplification, or certified copy of the original. (Emphasis supplied.) B. ¶9 The trial court is required to examine all of the records in a DPS file relative to an offense committed.12 Section 2-111 clearly and unambiguously declares photo- copies of DPS records to be considered originals and admissible in any court. Applying this statute could end our inquiry but this is not the only dispositive statute applicable to this cause. Revocation appeal proceedings in the district court are exempt from the provision of the Oklahoma Pleading and Discovery codes, but they are not exempt from the Oklahoma Evidence Code.13 The requirements of 12 O.S. 2011 §3004(3) which are applicable here specifically allow admission of duplicates, or other secondary evidence, to prove the contents of a document, when the original document is: 1) under the control of the party against whom it is offered; 2) the party was put on notice by the pleadings or otherwise that the contents would be a subject of proof at the hearings; and 3) the party does not produce the original at the hearing.14 ¶10 Title 12 O.S. 2011 §3004, which is identical to Rule 1004 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, carves out specific exceptions to the normal rules of admissibility under the evidence code.15 These requirements have been met in this cause because: 1) the original DPS revocation order was in the possession of DPS, against whom it was to be proffered; 2) DPS was put on notice by Hedrick's pleading that the contents of the revocation order would be a subject of proof at the hearing in the trial court; and 3) DPS did not produce the original at the hearing or any other time. ¶11 Title 12 O.S. 2011 §3004 does not require that a duplicate be certified if the necessary conditions are satisfied, nor does it recognize any degree of secondary evidence, such as first requiring a direct copy.16 The reason a certified copy is not required under this rule is because DPS has the original in their possession. If the authenticity of the copy is questioned they can easily introduce the original as proof.17 ¶12 This rule has long been a settled issue under Oklahoma law. Interpreting a prior incarnation of this rule in Security State Bank v. Lane, 1917 OK 263, ¶3, 166 P. 160, we held: In these circumstances the copy of the demand was admissible in evidence under the rule governing the admission of exhibits attached to pleadings and made a part thereof. Moreover, where, as in this and similar cases, the original paper is necessarily in the hands of the defendant, notice to produce the same is not required to allow a copy to be given in evidence where the form of the action and the allegations of the pleadings are such as to give notice that the production will be necessary at the trial. ¶13 We revisited this rule in Smith v. Arrow Drilling Co., 1942 OK 337, ¶19, 130 P.2d 95 , where we held that it was not an error to receive into evidence a carbon copy of an instrument, material to the issues, where it was shown that the original was in the hands of the adverse party. II. THE APPEAL WAS NOT UNTIMELY. ¶14 DPS argues that Hedrick's district court appeal was untimely because it must be filed within thirty days pursuant to 47 O.S. Supp. 2006 §6-211(E).18 DPS argues that his petition was filed October 30, 2009, thirty-seven days after the order was mailed. The only evidence of this mailing date is found on the order itself, wherein it states the date it was mailed. Hedrick concedes that his petition must be filed within thirty days of service to him, but argues that DPS mailed the order through the United States mail and pursuant to 47 O.S. Supp. 2007 §2-116, when any notice is mailed by DPS, the notice is complete upon the expiration of ten days after it was mailed. ¶15 Section 2-116 provides: Whenever the Department of Public Safety is authorized or required to give any notice under this act or other law regulating the operation of vehicles, unless a different method of giving such notice is otherwise expressly prescribed, such notice shall be given either by personal delivery thereof to the person to be so notified or by deposit in the United States mail of such notice in an envelope with first class postage prepaid, addressed to such person at the address as shown by the records of the Department. The giving of notice by mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10) days after such deposit of said notice. Proof of the giving of notice in either such manner may be made by the certificate of any officer or employee of the Department or affidavit of any person over eighteen (18) years of age, naming the person to whom such notice was given and specifying the time, place and manner of the giving thereof. Failure of the person to receive notice because of failure to notify the Department of a change in his or her current mailing address, as required by Section 6-116 of this title, shall not be sufficient grounds for the person to protest the notice. Hedrick argues that his thirty day deadline did not begin to run until ten days after September 23, 2009 --- the date DPS mailed the order. Even though DPS does not dispute that it mailed the order to Hedrick, it insists this statute only comes into play in certain cases so that a presumption can be made that the notice would be received in, at most, ten days after mailing, but, without explanation, insists this is not one of those cases. ¶16 We disagree. When DPS follows the procedures authorized by 47 O.S. Supp. 2007 §2-116 and chooses to mail orders through the United States mail, it would be inconsistent with the statute to deny its application to extend the deadline for the person receiving the order through the mail to file an appeal with the district court. Hedrick had ten days after September 23, 2009, before his notice was considered complete. He filed his appeal on October 30, 2009. Hedrick's appeal was timely filed in the district court. CONCLUSION ¶17 Title 47 O.S. Supp. 2007 §2-111 clearly and unambiguously declares photocopies of DPS records to be considered originals and admissible in any court.19 Even if it did not, the original DPS revocation order is in the possession of DPS. It mails, through the United States mail, copies of these orders to drivers whose licenses have been revoked. Pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 §3004(3), a driver challenging the revocation is not required to obtain a certified copy of the same order DPS mailed in order to file an appeal to the district court to put DPS on notice of its own decision.20 If for any reason the authenticity of the copy is called into question, DPS has the original to introduce as proof. ¶18 This procedure is no different than that followed by this Court. When the Court of Civil Appeals issues an opinion, it is mailed through the United States mail by the Supreme Court Clerk to the parties. If a party wishes to file a petition for certiorari, the party must attach a photocopy of the Court of Civil Appeals opinion to the petition, but it need not obtain a certified copy from our Clerk before filing the petition for certiorari. If the authenticity of the copy is called into question, the original is already in our possession via the Supreme Court Clerk.21 ¶19 DPS is legislatively authorized to mail orders through the United States mail pursuant to 47 O.S. Supp. 2007 § 2-116. When it does, notice is not complete until 10 days after the order is mailed.22 Once notice is complete, a driver has thirty days to file an appeal to the district court.23 CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED. COLBERT, C.J., REIF, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, WINCHESTER, TAYLOR, COMBS, GURICH, JJ., concur. EDMONDSON, J., concurs in result (by separate writing). FOOT