Opinion ID: 2624992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: A driver's license is an important property interest.

Text: Whitesides's interest is in retaining his right to drive. Both federal and state courts have recognized that a driver's license is an important property interest. In Bell v. Burson, the United States Supreme Court explained that, [o]nce licenses are issued ... their continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood. [10] Issued licenses are important interests of the licensees, ... [which] are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment. [11] In Berlinghieri v. Department of Motor Vehicles, the California Supreme Court explained at length the practical importance of a driver's license: In our present travel-oriented society, the retention of a driver's license is an important right to every person who has obtained such a license.... [T]he reality of contemporary society is that public transportation systems may not meet the needs of many travellers [sic] and other forms of transportation, such as taxicabs, are not economically feasible for a large portion of the population. Whether a driver's license is required only for delivering bread, commuting to work, transporting children or the elderly, meeting medical appointments, attending social or political functions, or any combination of these or other purposes, the revocation or suspension of that license, even for a six-month period, can and often does constitute a severe personal and economic hardship. For plaintiff, as a route driver, her ability to drive a delivery truck affects her very livelihood and the suspension of her license obviously will affect her directly, immediately, and adversely. Further, as a single working parent, she is faced with the numerous responsibilities of child rearing, many of which necessitate a speedy and reliable means of transportation. The suspension of plaintiff's license, even for only six months, may have profound and obvious effects on her life situation and thus,... constitutes quasi-judicial administrative decisions that have an impact on the individual sufficiently vital ... to compel full and independent review by the court.[ [12] ] This court has likewise recognized that [a] driver's license is an important property interest. [13] Calling driver's license revocation hearings quasi-criminal, we have held that the right to test the reliability of a breath test applies in civil driver's license revocation proceedings as well as in criminal prosecutions for DWI. [14] And we have applied a prophylactic rule to exclude from a license revocation proceeding the results of a Breathalyzer test secured in violation of the defendant's right to counsel. [15] These cases underscore the importance of the right to drive.