Opinion ID: 1985175
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Amendment of Section 321J.13.

Text: An arrest for operating while intoxicated not only typically results in a criminal proceeding, but also triggers an administrative proceeding under the implied consent statute for the revocation of the motorist's driver's license. See Iowa Code ch. 321J. The revocation results either because the motorist refused a chemical test or the results of the chemical test exceeded the statutory limit. See id. §§ 321J.9,.12. Although the DOT is required to revoke a driver's license upon receipt of a proper certificate by a police officer under either the refusal to submit or the test result provisions, the motorist may request a hearing to contest the revocation. Id. § 321J.13(1). The issue at the hearing is limited to whether the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person was operating while intoxicated, in addition to whether the person either refused a test or the results of the test that was administered exceeded the statutory limit. Id. § 321J.13(2). Additionally, prior to an amendment in 1997, the statute also provided: A person whose motor vehicle license or operating privilege has been or is being revoked under section 321J.9 or 321J.12 may reopen a department hearing on the revocation if the person submits a petition stating that new evidence has been discovered which provides grounds for rescission of the revocation, or prevail at the hearing to rescind the revocation, if the person submits a petition stating that a criminal action on a charge of a violation of section 321J.2 filed as a result of the same circumstances which resulted in the revocation has resulted in a decision in which the court has held that the peace officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of section 321J.2 or 321J.2A had occurred to support a request for or to administer a chemical test or which has held the chemical test to be otherwise inadmissible or invalid. Such a decision by the court is binding on the department and the department shall rescind the revocation. Id. § 321J.13(4). The legislature amended section 321J.13(4) in 1997 by striking it from the section. See 1997 Iowa Acts ch. 104, § 31. This amendment therefore eliminated the ability of a motorist to file a petition to rescind a revocation based upon a successful challenge to the reasonableness of the stop in the criminal case. The amendment became effective July 1, 1997. Thus, at the time Wieslander obtained a favorable decision in the criminal case and sought to utilize the statute to rescind the revocation, the statute no longer existed.
To determine the law to apply to the resolution of this controversy, we must first consider whether the 1997 amendment to section 321J.13 constituted a repeal. In striking subsection four, the legislature expressed its action as an amendment. There is a distinction between an amendment and a repeal. Generally, when an entire act or section is abrogated and no new section is added to replace the section, the act accomplishing this result is considered a repeal. 1A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 23.02, at 320 (5th ed.1992) [hereinafter Sutherland ]. However, when a provision is withdrawn from a section, it is technically considered an amendment. Id. § 23.02, at 320. The distinction can be important because separate rules of construction have been developed for each category. Id. § 23.02, at 321. Yet, the term implied repeal has been applied to amendments which have the same qualitative effect as a repeal. Id. When this is done, courts may resort to the rules of construction developed for express repeals. Id. There is a strong presumption against an implied repeal, and a repeal by implication will not be found unless legislative intent to repeal is clear in the language used and such a holding is absolutely necessary. Good v. Crouch, 397 N.W.2d 757, 760 (Iowa 1986) (quoting State v. Rauhauser, 272 N.W.2d 432, 434 (Iowa 1978)). The underlying rationale behind the presumption against the implied repeal is to avoid judicial usurpation of legislative authority. Id. at 760; Sutherland § 23.10, at 353. However, this case presents an appropriate instance to apply the implied repeal doctrine. In this case, we apply the implied repeal doctrine because the effect of the amendment striking subsection four is consistent with a repeal. In fact, the rationale for distinguishing the striking of a provision from a section from the abrogation of an entire section or act is really a matter of degree. Sutherland § 23.02, at 320. Thus, construing the amendment as an implied repeal does not undermine legislative authority and is consistent with legislative intent. Cf. Burton v. University of Iowa Hosp. & Clinics, 566 N.W.2d 182, 189 (Iowa 1997) (considering a repeal of a special statute by a more general one). Accordingly, we apply our rules of statutory construction typically reserved for express repeals.