Opinion ID: 1338930
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Burrough Facts

Text: Ms. Burrough was arrested in Hancock County on June 14, 1997, for driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of West Virginia Code § 17C-5-2(d). The arresting officer, Trooper B.L. Allen of the West Virginia State Police, submitted a Statement of Arresting Officer to inform the Division of Ms. Burrough's arrest. An Intoxilyzer ticket submitted with the Statement of Arresting Officer reflected a result of .181 on an insufficient sample. The Statement of Arresting Officer also included Ms. Burrough's address as 264 Central Avenue, Weirton, West Virginia. Upon notice of the arrest, the Division issued an initial order revoking the privilege of Ms. Burrough to drive in West Virginia. The initial revocation order was forwarded to Ms. Burrough by certified mail on June 25, 1997, return receipt requested, at the address which was then on file with the Division, [4] pursuant to the requirements of West Virginia Code § 17A-2-19. The envelope containing the revocation notice was returned to the Division with a notation indicating that a forwarding order had expired. The Division's initial revocation notice advised Ms. Burrough that her privilege to drive in West Virginia was revoked for a period of six months pending successful completion of the safety and treatment program and payment of pertinent fees. The notice further advised Ms. Burrough that she was entitled to request an administrative hearing to challenge the revocation, in writing, with the Commissioner in person or by registered or certified mail, return-receipt requested, within ten (10 ) days after receipt of this order. Ms. Burrough never requested an administrative hearing and no further action took place at the administrative level. Approximately two months later, on September 9, 1997, Ms. Burrough initiated the circuit court action by filing a pleading simply entitled Motion. In her Motion, Ms. Burrough contended that she did not receive a right to hearing notice from the Division and therefore, denial of her right to hearing would be unjust and unfair. She contended that she did not change her former post office address to her current residency address because of excusable neglect. Ms. Burrough requested that the circuit court order the Division to give her a new notice of revocation so that she might be afforded a hearing. The circuit court assigned the action an administrative appeal number. The Division moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the petition should be viewed as an extraordinary writ of mandamus based upon the nature of the relief requested and that the circuit court lacked venue and jurisdiction over the action. After a hearing on both Ms. Burrough's motion and the Division's motion to dismiss, the circuit court denied the Division's motion to dismiss, holding that the action was not in the nature of a writ of mandamus, but rather a demand for review of a denial of due process. With respect to Ms. Burrough's motion, the circuit court held that the Department's [Division's] actions in not mailing it [the revocation notice] to the address provided by the arresting officer when it had access to the appropriate address, was arbitrary and capricious[.] The circuit court ordered the Division to grant Ms. Burrough an administrative hearing within thirty days of the entry of the order.