Court Opinion

ID: 4746654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-12 17:41:01.785375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:08:35.436451
License: Public Domain

¶18 (concurring in result) — In the circumstances of this case, the license revocation did not constitute punishment. However, the majority opinion should not be interpreted as holding that a license revocation can never be a criminal sanction. The cases cited by the majority, which arise from administrative licensing proceedings, “show only that license revocation is a civil sanction when it is imposed as the result of an administrative proceeding, or as the result of a proceeding undertaken for the sole purpose of restricting a person’s privilege to drive. They do not hold that license revocation is inherently a civil sanction.” State v. Hopkins, 109 Wn. App. 558, 566, 36 P.3d 1080 (2001). For example, if a statutory scheme creates the possibility of both a civil and criminal license revocation proceeding arising from the same arrest, precedent does not require that both revocations be regarded as civil sanctions. Hopkins, 109 Wn. App. at 567.
Becker, J.
¶19 Because the statute in this case does not manifest any legislative intent to use license revocation as a punishment, I conclude along with the majority that the finding did not increase the statutory maximum sentence.