Opinion ID: 1304492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interplay Between Chapter 321J and Chapter 321C.

Text: The resolution of this case rests on a determination of whether the DOT or the district court has the authority to grant a temporary restricted license to an individual who is also subject to an out-of-state revocation. [2] We will begin our discussion with an analysis of chapter 321J and the provisions made in our OWI laws for the issuance of a temporary restricted license. We will then determine whether anything in chapter 321C modifies the authority granted in chapter 321J with respect to the issuance of a temporary license.
A person whose driver's license has ... been revoked under this chapter ... may petition the court upon the expiration of the minimum period of ineligibility for a temporary restricted license ... for an order to the department to require the department to issue a temporary restricted license. (Emphasis added.) This statutory provision plainly and unambiguously gives the district court the authority to decide whether an individual subject to a chapter 321J revocation should be granted a temporary restricted license. A review of chapter 321J reveals a separate, specific provision also granting the DOT similar authority, see Iowa Code § 321J.20, but that provision does not apply to a person whose license is revoked for six years under section 321J.4(4). See id. § 321J.20(1), (2). In summary, a person who is subject to a six-year revocation under section 321J.4(4) may apply to the district court for an order requiring the DOT to issue a temporary restricted license, provided, however, that the other requirements of the statute are met. Such other requirements include the expiration of the period of ineligibility, see id. § 321J.4(4) (imposing a one-year period of ineligibility), proof that a license is necessary for the person to maintain the person's present employment, see id. § 321J.4(9), and certification that an approved ignition interlock device has been installed on the person's vehicle, see id. As applied to the facts of the case before us, only the district court has authority under chapter 321J to issue a temporary restricted license to Vargason because his license revocation was pursuant to section 321J.4(4). [3] Therefore, the proper forum for Vargason's request for such a license is the Benton County district court, not the DOT. We now consider whether chapter 321C affects the district court's authority to order the issuance of a temporary restricted license. B. Interstate compactchapter 321C. The Iowa legislature enacted the Interstate Drivers License Compact in 1965. See 1965 Iowa Acts ch. 295. This Act allows the director of transportation to enter into compacts with other states that conform to the provisions of chapter 321C. One purpose of such a compact is to [m]ake the reciprocal recognition of licenses to drive and eligibility therefor more just and equitable by considering the overall compliance with motor vehicle laws, ordinances and administrative rules and regulations as a condition precedent to the continuance or issuance of any license by reason of which the licensee is authorized or permitted to operate a motor vehicle in any of the party states. Iowa Code ch. 321C, art. I( b )(2). To facilitate the consideration of out-of-state compliance with motor vehicle laws, the party states report each conviction related to the use or operation of a motor vehicle occurring in their state to the home state of the licensee. See id. art. III. For purposes of suspension or revocation of a driver's license, the licensee's home state may give the same effect to out-of-state OWI convictions that such convictions would have if they had occurred in the licensee's home state. See id. art. IV( a )(2); accord State v. Peterson, 347 N.W.2d 398, 401 (Iowa 1984). Of particular importance to the present case is the following provision governing the application for a license to drive: Upon application for a license to drive, the licensing authority in a party state shall ascertain whether the applicant has ever held, or is the holder of a license to drive issued by any other party state. The licensing authority in the state where application is made shall not issue a license to drive to the applicant if: ... 2. The applicant has held such a license, but the same has been revoked by reason, in whole or in part, of a violation and if such revocation has not terminated, except that after the expiration of one year from the date the license was revoked, such person may make application for a new license if permitted by law. The licensing authority may refuse to issue a license to any such applicant if, after investigation, the licensing authority determines that it will not be safe to grant to such person the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on the public highways. Iowa Code ch. 321C, art. V(2) (emphasis added). Finally, the compact provides that [e]xcept as expressly required by provisions of this compact, nothing contained herein shall be construed to affect the right of any party state to apply any of its other laws relating to licenses to drive to any person or circumstance.... Id. art. VI. From these provisions, we conclude that chapter 321C prevents Iowa licensing authorities from issuing a driver's license to an applicant who held an out-of-state license that was revoked, subject to one exception. That exception is triggered after one year from the date of the out-of-state revocation. See Russell v. Director of Revenue, 861 S.W.2d 223, 224 (Mo.Ct. App.1993) (holding that Missouri applicant, whose Kansas license had been revoked for an OWI conviction, was not eligible for a Missouri license because one year had not passed since the Kansas revocation, as required by the Interstate Drivers License Compact). Upon the expiration of one year, the applicant may apply for a new license in Iowa if permitted by law. In apparent contradiction to these provisions, the State argues that the compact's statement of policy seems to require that Iowa honor Florida's permanent revocation. The State quotes the policy as to [m]ake the reciprocal recognition of licenses to drive and eligibility therefor... as a condition precedent to ... issuance of any license ... in any of the party states. Iowa Code ch. 321C, art. I( b )(2). But the State misrepresents the policy of the compact in its cryptic quotation of the statute. The compact merely strives to [m]ake the reciprocal recognition of licenses to drive and eligibility therefor more just and equitable by considering the overall compliance with motor vehicle laws ... as a condition precedent to the continuance or issuance of a license. Id. In other words, the policy promoted by the statute is not to give effect to out-of-state revocations in the party state, but to allow the licensing state to consider out-of-state driving records in making its own licensing decisions. Therefore, we reject the State's argument that the intent of the compact is to require that Iowa licensing authorities honor out-of-state revocations for the entire period of the out-of-state revocation. Cf. Kiebort v. Commonwealth, 719 A.2d 1139, 1142 (Pa. Cmwlth.1998) (holding that when home state's length of suspension is different from party state where conduct and conviction occurred, home state is not required to give the same length of suspension as party state but rather treats the reported conduct as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state). In fact, it appears that this issue is directly addressed in article V, which merely requires that an out-of-state revocation be honored for one year from the date of the revocation. See Iowa Code ch. 321C, art. V(2). At that point, the licensing state may make its own licensing decisions as permitted by the law of the licensing state. This provision would be superfluous if Iowa were required to give the Florida revocation binding effect in Iowa during the entire period of the Florida revocation. Having determined that an individual subject to an out-of-state revocation may apply for a license in Iowa if permitted by law, we consider the State's contention that two Iowa statutes prevent the issuance of a license to Vargason. Iowa Code section 321.177 provides that the DOT shall not issue a license [t]o any person whose motor vehicle license or driving privilege is suspended or revoked. Section 321.182 requires a person who makes application to the DOT to [c]ertify that the applicant is not currently subject to suspension, revocation, or cancellation of any driver's license. The DOT asserts that it has given effect to these statutes by the promulgation of its administrative rule requiring that an applicant subject to an out-of-state revocation have an official letter of eligibility from the state issuing the revocation before the DOT will issue an Iowa license. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 761-601.1(3). Vargason contends that this rule conflicts with article V of chapter 321C that gives the out-of-state revocation only one year of binding effect. We agree. We first point out that statutes must be read in pari materia. See Peterson, 347 N.W.2d at 401 (Statutes relating to the same subject matter, or to closely allied subjects, may properly be construed, considered and examined in the light of their common purposes and intent.). Although section 321.177 prohibits the issuance of a driver's license to an applicant subject to a revocation, chapter 321J expressly permits the DOT, on its own or pursuant to court order, to issue a temporary restricted license, under certain conditions, to an individual subject to a revocation. See Iowa Code §§ 321J.4(9), .20. Thus, section 321.177 is not a blanket prohibition on issuing any type of license to a person under revocation. The same analysis applies to section 321.182. That section merely assists the DOT in implementing section 321.177 by requiring an applicant to certify that he is not currently subject to a suspension, revocation, or cancellation. Certainly these statutes do not prevent the DOT from issuing a temporary restricted license pursuant to chapter 321J, as the underlying premise of the temporary restricted license provisions of chapter 321J is that the applicant is subject to a revocation. Consequently, we reject the State's contention that sections 321.177 and 321.182 authorize the administrative rule requiring a letter of eligibility from the out-of-state licensing authority. Nor can rule 761-601.1(3) be sustained on the basis of the interstate compact. As we have already decided, that statute does not preclude the issuance of an Iowa driver's license, if permitted by Iowa law, after a one-year period following the out-of-state revocation. In fact, the rule directly conflicts with chapter 321C by deferring Iowa licensing decisions to the out-of-state licensing authority in contravention to the compact, which merely requires that Iowa consider the out-of-state convictions as if they had occurred in Iowa in making its own licensing decisions. Because rule 761-601.1(3) is inconsistent with the statutes it purports to effectuate, it is invalid and unenforceable. See Lenning v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 368 N.W.2d 98, 103 (Iowa 1985) (holding that [a]n administrative rule which does not comport with the intent of the enabling legislation may be abrogated as an act in excess of the agency's authority). In summary, chapter 321C allows Iowa licensing authorities to issue a license to a person subject to an out-of-state revocation, provided that one year has passed since the imposition of the revocation, if permitted by Iowa law. We have already determined that section 321J.4(9) authorizes the district court to order the issuance of a temporary restricted license to an individual subject to a six-year revocation. The DOT's administrative rule, being in conflict with statutory enactments, does not prevent the court from exercising this authority when the requirements of section 321J.4(9) are satisfied. That brings us to the final issue: did the district court err in holding that Vargason's license was revoked under chapter 321C, thereby rendering him ineligible for a temporary restricted license under section 321J.4(9)?