Court Opinion

ID: 9843782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:43:16.761346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:55.322920
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice,
concurring in the result.
[¶ 31] I concur in the result, but disagree with the majority to the extent they hold Whitecalfe and Berg “arguably have standing,” and I disagree with Justice Kapsner that Whitecalfe and Berg do have standing.
[¶ 32] The narrow due process issue raised by Whitecalfe and Berg is whether their rights were impinged because they did not receive the officer’s probable cause statement before deciding to request a hearing. Whitecalfe and Berg actually filed their requests for hearing before receiving the statement. Therefore, White-*790calfe and Berg have no actual injury, have no stake in the outcome of that dispute, and have no standing to raise the issue.
[¶ 33] MARY MUEHLEN MARING, J, concurs.