Opinion ID: 2635293
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of a Continuance and Failure To Provide the Recording

Text: Hartman maintains that the superior court erred by denying him a continuance to obtain additional evidence. Because this claim is closely related to his argument about the recording  that the State violated his right to due process by failing to furnish the central piece of evidence in the case  the two issues will be treated together. A driver has a constitutional right to a meaningful hearing before the state can suspend his [or her] license. [34] In defining a meaningful hearing, we are guided by `considerations of fundamental fairness,' [35] which require that the same procedural safeguards apply in civil driver's license revocation proceedings for driving while intoxicated as apply in criminal prosecutions for that offense. [36] One such safeguard is the requirement that the State preserve and make available to a criminal defendant material evidence gathered in a criminal investigation which may prove important in the preparation of the accused's defense. [37] A meaningful license revocation hearing, like a meaningful trial, should therefore include the presence of the arresting officer, the production of the report of the arresting officer and any tape recordings, videotapes, or transcripts concerning events surrounding the arrest. [38] The State asserts that it is generally not required to furnish such evidence in the absence of a request, [39] and points out that Hartman did not explicitly request a copy of the tape. But Hartman, a pro se litigant, had requested a continuance on the ground that he had so far been unable to gather all the evidence that [he] need[ed], and the court heard testimony that he had previously (but unsuccessfully) attempted to obtain a copy of the recording. We have stated that a trial judge should inform a pro se litigant of the proper procedure for the action he or she is obviously attempting to accomplish. [40] Here, Hartman was obviously attempting [41] to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence, and the central piece of evidence in this case was the recording. [42] His failure to request a copy at the close of the hearing appears to have been the product of a belief that the tape did not exist. [43] In this situation, the hearing officer should have informed Hartman that he could request a copy of the tape and, if the State failed to provide the requested evidence, that she could impose an appropriate sanction. [44] Her failure to inform Hartman of the procedure by which he could procure the tape that he had previously sought, and her issuance of a decision that was based largely on a recording that neither she nor the accused had heard, violated Hartman's right to due process. We therefore remand for a new hearing.