Opinion ID: 2359071
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The district court's order reversing the hearing examiner

Text: [¶ 15] We need not set out the district court's findings because they are just as comprehensive as those made by the hearing examiner. However, the district court concluded that there was not substantial evidence that Potvin had been driving or had been in actual control of a motor vehicle upon a street while under the influence of alcohol. This was largely premised on the testimony given by Potvin, when sober and under oath, as opposed to the statements made to police officers while he was very intoxicated and awakened from sleep hours after the reported accident occurred. [¶ 16] We take note here that 1 Weil's Code Of Wyoming Rules, 270 000 001-8 Office of Administrative Hearings, Chapter 6, Special Rules Relating to Driver's Licenses, Section (b) (2008), provides: (b) For any contested case hearing concerning Implied Consent  Administrative Per Se suspension (WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 31-6-101 through 31-6-107), of Commercial Driver's License Implied Consent disqualification  blood alcohol concentration of four one-hundredths of one percent (0.04%) or more (WYO. STAT. ANN. § 31-7-307), the Wyoming Department of Transportation's certified record shall consist of: (i) The peace officer's signed statement of probable cause; (ii) The notice of suspension or disqualification; (iii) A copy of the temporary license, if issued; (iv) The operational checklist or chemical test result provided by the Wyoming Chemical Testing Program, Division of Health and Medical Services; (v) A copy of the peace officer's certification if applicable; (vi) All other evidence which is material to the matter. [¶ 17] The broken piece of the license plate holder was material evidence in this case because it was used to identify Potvin's pickup as the offending vehicle, but not Potvin as the offending driver. The only evidence that Potvin drove, or was in actual physical control of, the vehicle was Potvin himself. Likewise, the audio recording of the field sobriety test does not appear in the record on appeal, although it too is very certainly material evidence. Moreover, it demonstrated that the investigating police officers had the capacity to tape-record the entirety of the interaction between them and Potvin. These failings serve to undermine WYDOT's report, which is the only evidence both the hearing officer and the district court had to rely upon to sustain WYDOT's case. [¶ 18] Nonetheless, given the entirety of the facts and circumstances called to the hearing examiner's attention, we conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner's ultimate finding that the police had probable cause to contact Potvin, to question him about the accident, and eventually to request that he voluntarily submit to a chemical breath or blood test, which Potvin refused. Likewise, the record contains substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner's findings that Potvin and his roommate were not credible witnesses. We also note that the hearing examiner's conclusions were not arbitrary and capricious in light of the evidence we have set out above.