Court Opinion

ID: 9539789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:10:20.643303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:20.822184
License: Public Domain

Hill, J.
(dissenting) — I dissent. It is conceded that the director of the department of licenses intended to suspend Joseph Gnecchi’s motor vehicle operator’s license for sixty days without a hearing.
I agree with the majority that in the exercise of the police power the director of licenses should, and does, have the power to suspend, without a hearing, the license of a driver whom the director has reason to believe is a menace to the safety of others on the highway.
If the director erred in such a case, the de novo review procedure provides ample protection of all constitutional rights, as the majority opinion points out. If the director did not err, no one has a constitutional right to be a menace to the safety of others on the highway.
I would, however, affirm the trial court in restraining the director from suspending Gnecchi’s license, in the present case, because I cannot conceive of a situation where there is a necessity to suspend a license without a hearing if the suspension imposed, is. for no more than sixty days. What happens to the safety of the public after sixty days? The purpose of such a suspension is primarily punishment, and there is no reason why a hearing should not precede the suspension.
Donworth, J., concurs with Hill, J.