Court Opinion

ID: 9530092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:57:19.36117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:00.050686
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Judge PLANK.
The Department of Revenue (Department) appeals from the district court judgment reversing its revocation of the driver’s license of plaintiff, Judy C. Alford, for refusing to submit to testing as required by the express consent law. We reverse.
The evidence at the revocation hearing established that, on October 20,1989, plaintiff was the driver of a vehicle involved in a traffic accident. Plaintiff sustained a minor head injury in the accident and was transported to a hospital, where she was held for observation for the next one and one-half days.
At the hospital, about one hour after the accident, the investigating police officer received permission from the treating physician to interview plaintiff. The police officer then questioned plaintiff about the accident and asked her to take a blood alcohol test because he noticed various indications of intoxication. Plaintiff became verbally abusive to the police officer in response to his repeated requests to take a blood test, and she acknowledged that she was refusing to submit to testing.
The police officer subsequently forwarded a completed notice of revocation form and other documents concerning the incident to the Department. The notice of revocation form was signed and sworn to by the police officer before a notary, who also signed and dated the form, but the form was not dated by the investigating police officer.
At the revocation hearing, plaintiff’s expert witness, the attending nurse at the hospital, testified that plaintiff’s behavior was consistent with that exhibited by patients with closed head injuries and that plaintiff could not make any decisions concerning herself until about four hours after she arrived at the hospital. On cross-exam-*515¡nation, however, the nurse also testified that persons who are intoxicated can exhibit exactly the same behavior as that described for persons with closed head injuries and that plaintiff’s gradual return to calmness was consistent with either a reduction of closed head injury swelling or a reduction of alcohol in her system.
The hearing officer found that plaintiff had refused to submit to testing and, therefore, ordered the revocation of her driver’s license pursuant to § 42-2-122.1, C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17).
On review, the district court reversed the revocation on two grounds. First, the district court ruled that, by failing to date the notice of revocation form, the investigating police officer did not comply with the requirements of § 42-2-122.1(2)(a), C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.), applicable here, and that this statutory violation deprived the Department of jurisdiction to order the revocation. The district court also ruled that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the revocation because the evidence weighed evenly, at best, as to whether plaintiff’s refusal to submit to testing was caused by her medical condition from her injuries or was caused by her intoxication.
The Department contends that the district court erred in so ruling, and we agree.
I.
As to the police officer’s failure to date the notice of revocation form, we reject the Department’s argument that § 42-2-122. l(2)(a) does not require dating by the affiant when the form is dated by a notary, but we conclude that this statutory violation is not a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant reversal of the revocation.
Pursuant to § 42-2-122.l(2)(a), C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.), whenever a driver refuses to submit to testing as required by the express consent law, the police officer requesting such testing is required to forward an “affidavit” concerning the incident to the Department. Cf. Colo.Sess.Laws 1988, ch. 293, § 42-2-122. l(2)(b) at 1360 (police officer required to forward “verified report” containing “all relevant information”).
As pertinent to the issues here, § 42-2-122.1(2)(a) now provides that the affidavit “shall be dated, signed, and sworn to by the law enforcement officer under penalty of perjury, but need not be notarized or sworn to before any other person.” (emphasis added).
Contrary to the Department’s argument, the plain meaning of these provisions is that a police officer who signs and swears to an affidavit is required to date the affidavit as well, regardless of whether a notary also signs and dates the affidavit. Thus, since the investigating police officer failed to date the notice of revocation form, which served as the required affidavit here, the district court properly ruled that this omission was in violation of the statutory requirements.
Nevertheless, contrary to the district court’s analysis, we conclude that this statutory violation did not deprive the Department of jurisdiction over the revocation proceedings. Rather, under the statutory scheme as a whole, we conclude that substantial compliance with the requirements of § 42-2-122.1(2)(a) in the submission of the relevant documents by a police officer to the Department is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Department in revocation proceedings. See Franklin v. Colorado Department of Revenue, 728 P.2d 391 (Colo.App.1986) (police officer’s omissions in completing notice of revocation form did not invalidate revocation, as statutory requirements of former § 42-2-122.-1(2) were substantially met).
Specifically, in our view the Department acquires jurisdiction in revocation proceedings under § 42-2-122.1 as long as the affidavit and other documents forwarded by the police officer contain sufficient information of a reliable character to permit the Department to make a revocation determination. See §§ 42-2-122.1(1.5)(b), (2)(a), (3)(a) & (3)(d), C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.); Franklin v. Colorado Department of Revenue, supra.
We also note that the 1989 amendments to § 42-2-122.1(2) significantly relaxed the requirements of the former statute for in-*516yoking the Department’s jurisdiction in revocation proceedings by deleting the requirements that the police officer’s report be verified and that it must contain “all” relevant information. Compare § 42-2-122.1(2)(a), C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.) with Colo.Sess.Laws 1988, ch. 293, §§ 42-2-122.-l(2)(a) & (2)(b) at 1360. The relaxation of these requirements in the 1989 amendments is inconsistent with the view that the General Assembly intended a police officer’s noncompliance with the dating requirement now contained in the statute to be jurisdictional. See also Kenney v. Chames, 717 P.2d 1020 (Colo.App.1986) (police officer’s statutory violation in failing to serve notice of revocation personally on driver is not jurisdictional in revocation proceedings under § 42-2-122.1); Mattingly v. Charnes, 700 P.2d 927 (Colo.App.1985) (Department’s statutory violation in failing to provide driver with full 20 days advance notice of hearing is not jurisdictional in revocation proceedings under § 42-2-122.-1).
Here, the police officer’s failure to date the notice of revocation form did not affect the reliability of the information contained in the documents submitted to the Department, and the documents contained sufficient information to permit the Department to make a revocation determination. Thus, this statutory violation is not jurisdictional, and the district court erred in ruling otherwise.
Furthermore, a revocation will not be reversed on review based on a non-jurisdictional statutory violation unless the substantial rights of the licensee are prejudiced. Mattingly v. Charnes, supra; see People in Interest of Clinton, 762 P.2d 1381 (Colo.1988) (non-jurisdictional statutory violation does not constitute reversible error unless violation is of “essential condition” of statute so as to undermine confidence in fairness of proceedings). Here, plaintiff was not prejudiced by the police officer’s failure to date the notice of revocation form, and this omission was therefore harmless error.
II.
We agree with the Department’s argument that the revocation for plaintiff’s refusal to submit to testing is supported by the evidence in the record.
Here, the evidence at the revocation hearing was conflicting as to whether plaintiff’s refusal was caused by her head injuries or by her intoxication. In evaluating the nurse’s testimony on this issue, the hearing officer found that there was “no reliable evidence” which indicated to him that plaintiff’s refusal “was caused by a medical condition other than intoxication.”
Since the hearing officer’s finding as to plaintiff’s unjustified refusal was based on the resolution of conflicting evidence, this finding is binding on appeal, and the district court therefore erred in substituting its judgment for that of the hearing officer on this disputed factual issue. See ChaRNes v. Lobato, 743 P.2d 27 (Colo.1987).
The determination of whether a driver refused to submit to testing for purposes of the revocation statute is based solely on the objective standard of the driver’s external manifestations of willingness or unwillingness to take a test. Dolan v. Rust, 195 Colo. 173, 576 P.2d 560 (1978); see Boom v. ChaRNes, 739 P.2d 868 (Colo.App.1987), rev’d, on other grounds, 766 P.2d 665 (Colo.1988). Plaintiff’s external manifestations of refusal are therefore controlling here.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court with directions to reinstate the order of revocation.
NEY, J., concurs.
JONES, J., dissents.