Court Opinion

ID: 9654275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:12:26.610029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:07.530569
License: Public Domain

Inbody, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion, since Robbins’ hearing was invalid because it was not held in accordance with the Department’s rules and regulations for the reason that the hearing officer was located in a county other than where the arrest occurred.
The majority relies upon the proposition of law that in order to be valid, a rule or regulation must be consistent with the statute under which the rule or regulation is promulgated. Robotham v. State, 241 Neb. 379, 488 N.W.2d 533 (1992). However, rather than bolstering the majority’s opinion, this proposition simply reaffirms my position. If the statute prohibited an ALR hearing from being held in the county in which the arrest occurred and the Department’s rules made such a requirement, then I would agree with the majority that the Department’s rule was inconsistent with *76the statute, and in that circumstance, clearly the statute would invalidate the Department’s rule. However, that is not the case here.
At the time of Robbins’ December 15, 2003, ALR hearing, the Department’s rule provided: “Hearings shall be held either by telephone, in person, or by video conference if technically feasible at the discretion of the Director, in the county in which the arrest occurred. The parties may agree to another venue.” 247 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 1, § 022.01 (2001). The statute in effect at that time provided: “The hearing and any prehearing conference may be conducted in person or by telephone, television, or other electronic means at the discretion of the director, and all parties may participate by such means at the discretion of the director.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.01(6)(a) (Supp. 2003). Thus, at the time of Robbins’ December 15 hearing, the applicable statute did not require the hearing to be conducted in the county in which the arrest occurred, but the Department’s rules and regulations did so require.
Clearly, the language contained in the Department’s rule requiring the ALR hearing to be held in the county in which the arrest occurred is consistent with the language of the statute in effect at that time, even though the statute did not contain the same language. The statute does not prohibit a hearing’s being held in the county in which the arrest occurred. The Department’s rule requiring the ALR hearing to be held in the county in which the arrest occurred was an additional requirement that the Department imposed on itself, which requirement is not inconsistent with the statute.
I find that the following proposition of law is applicable to this case:
Properly adopted and filed agency regulations have the effect of statutory law. . . . Regulations bind the agency that . promulgated them just as they bind individual citizens, even if the adoption of the regulations was discretionary. . . . Regulations governing procedure are just as binding upon both the agency which enacts them and the public, “and the agency does not, as a general rule, have the discretion to waive, suspend, or disregard, in a particular case, a validly adopted rule so long as such rule remains in force.” . . . “To *77be valid, the action of the agency must conform to its rules which are in effect at the time the action is taken . . .
(Citations omitted.) Schmidt v. State, 255 Neb. 551, 559, 586 N.W.2d 148, 153-54 (1998).
The Department properly adopted and filed the regulation requiring that an ALR hearing take place in the county in which the arrest occurred, and such regulation has the effect of statutory law. The hearing officer in the instant case was located in Lincoln, Nebraska, within Lancaster County, and the county of arrest was Box Butte County. Since a “hearing is held at the location of the hearing officer,” Gracey v. Zwonechek, 263 Neb. 796, 800, 643 N.W.2d 381, 385 (2002), Robbins’ ALR hearing was not held in accordance with the Department’s rules and regulations, because the hearing officer was located in a county other than where the arrest occurred. Thus, I would reverse the decision of the district court and remand this cause with directions to remand Robbins’ case to the Department with directions to vacate the order of revocation. Because of this determination, I would not proceed to consider Robbins’ remaining assignment of error.