Court Opinion

ID: 9672330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:52:51.68607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:15.424399
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached by Judge Allen. I write separately only to express my view that Gargagliano1 is inapposite.
Gargagliano deals with a situation in being. This case deals with a situation after the fact. Hence I do find a difference in the summary suspensions.
Gargagliano is manifestly concerned with public protection in keeping a mental patient from operating a motor vehicle.
This case deals with suspension because of a violation over and done with.
Defendant was convicted of an offense the gravamen of which is driving a motor vehicle which negligently caused the death of another.
If the Legislature determines that this fact warrants suspension of his driving privileges, that is the Legislature’s business.
I see no constitutional infirmity in its so doing and thus agree with the result reached by Judge Allen.

 Gargagliano v Secretary of State, 62 Mich App 1; 233 NW2d 159 (1975).