Court Opinion

ID: 9795759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:38:11.840427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:36:17.473260
License: Public Domain

EASTAUGH, Justice,
dissenting.
I join in Justice Carpeneti's dissent in this case. He persuasively reasons in his dissent in the companion case of Whitesides v. State, Department of Public Safety1 that a case-specific inquiry is required when deciding whether due process demands that a hearing in a driver's license-revocation case be conducted in person. I agree that the inquiry *589must be case-specific. Nothing inherent about administrative driver's license-revocation proceedings invariably precludes hearing officers from conducting the hearings tele-phonically.
Considering the facts of this case, I also agree with Justice Carpeneti's case-specific conclusion that Brown did not inform the hearing officer of circumstances that required an in-person hearing. I therefore respectfully dissent from the court's opinion.

. 20 P.3d 1130, Op. No. 5388, 2001 WL 366621 (Alaska, April 13, 2001).