Court Opinion

ID: 9402480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 19:12:09.842543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:00.066915
License: Public Domain

No. 21-0991 –Everett Frazier, Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Motor
Vehicles v. Steve Briscoe
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                                  June 15, 2023
                                                                                    released at 3:00 p.m.
                                                                                EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                                SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                     OF WEST VIRGINIA

BUNN, Justice, concurring:

              I agree with the majority’s ultimate decision to affirm the circuit court’s order

rescinding Mr. Briscoe’s license revocations1 and reinstating his driver’s license. However,

I do not think it is necessary to consider the constitutionality of Mr. Briscoe’s arrest to

reach this result. Instead, I would have reinstated Mr. Briscoe’s driver’s license based on

the DMV’s failure to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Briscoe drove a

motor vehicle while he was under the influence of alcohol. See generally Frazier v.

Gaither, No. 21-0726, 2023 WL 3992034, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (W. Va. June

              1
               I refer to Mr. Briscoe’s revocations plurally because the DMV entered two
orders administratively revoking Mr. Briscoe’s driver’s license that are at issue in Case
Number 21-0991, in which I concur with the majority’s opinion: one order revoked Mr.
Briscoe’s driver’s license for “driving a motor vehicle . . . in West Virginia while under
the influence of alcohol, controlled substances, drugs or a combination of those,” and one
order revoked his license for “refus[ing] to submit to the secondary chemical test finally
designated.” The DMV entered both of these revocation orders on December 11, 2019.

               Case Number 21-0990, in which I dissent from the majority’s opinion,
involves a separate, third DMV order suspending Mr. Briscoe’s driver’s license for driving
“while [his] license was suspended for driving under the influence.” The DMV entered this
order on June 24, 2021. While the DMV refers to Mr. Briscoe’s sanction for driving under
the influence as a suspension, the DMV entitled its December 11, 2019 administrative order
pertaining to Mr. Briscoe’s driving under the influence offense as a revocation. For the
purposes of these appeals, though, both a revocation and a suspension have the same
operative effect of prohibiting Mr. Briscoe from operating a motor vehicle while those
orders are in effect.

                                              1
14, 2023) (recognizing DMV’s preponderance of the evidence burden of proof in license

revocation cases).

              Our longstanding precedent counsels us not to decide constitutional issues

when a case can be resolved on other grounds. “Constitutional questions will not be

considered and decided by this Court unless it is necessary for the determination of the

case.” Syl. pt. 3, State ex rel. Hedrick v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Cnty. of Ohio, 146 W. Va. 79,

118 S.E.2d 73 (1961). Accord Syl. pt. 5, In re Tax Assessments Against Pocahontas Land

Corp., 158 W. Va. 229, 210 S.E.2d 641 (1974) (“When it is not necessary in the decision

of a case to determine a constitutional question, this Court will not consider or determine

such question.”).

              The circuit court found that the constitutionality of Mr. Briscoe’s arrest for

driving under the influence was the determinative issue in deciding the validity of his

license revocations, and the majority echoes that refrain in its opinion affirming the circuit

court’s ruling. However, this case could have been resolved more simply by considering

whether the DMV proved that Mr. Briscoe drove a motor vehicle while under the influence

of alcohol. Moreover, in deciding an appeal from a circuit court, this Court is not bound by

the rationale relied upon by the circuit court in rendering its ruling. See generally Syl. pt.

3, Barnett v. Wolfolk, 149 W. Va. 246, 140 S.E.2d 466 (1965) (“This Court may, on appeal,

affirm the judgment of the lower court when it appears that such judgment is correct on

                                              2
any legal ground disclosed by the record, regardless of the ground, reason or theory

assigned by the lower court as the basis for its judgment.”).

              The record in this case supports the circuit court’s rescission of Mr. Briscoe’s

license revocations for driving under the influence and for refusal because the DMV did

not prove that Mr. Briscoe drove under the influence of alcohol. In its order reinstating Mr.

Briscoe’s driver’s license, the circuit court noted that

              [t]here was no evidence to confirm or believe that [Mr.
              Briscoe] drove under the influence of alcohol. There was no
              evidence to support the idea that Mr. Briscoe drank before,
              rather than after, driving. In fact, except for a complaining
              domestic partner, there was no evidence that Mr. Briscoe drove
              at all.

The circuit court further recognized that “drinking alcohol at home is a legal activity for

adults over the age of twenty-one. Therefore even if the officer smelled alcohol on Mr.

Briscoe’s breath, it does not establish that he drank before he drove, or whether he drove

at all.” Moreover, the DMV cannot base its revocation of Mr. Briscoe’s driver’s license

solely on the results of his horizontal gaze nystagmus test. See Syl. pt. 3, in part, White v.

Miller, 228 W. Va. 797, 724 S.E.2d 768 (2012) (“A driver’s license to operate a motor

vehicle in this State cannot be administratively revoked solely and exclusively on the

results of the driver’s horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Rather, additional evidence in

conjunction with the horizontal gaze nystagmus test is required for revocation[.]”).

                                              3
              In short, there is insufficient evidence that Mr. Briscoe drove his vehicle or

that, if he did drive, he was under the influence of alcohol at that time. The DMV has failed

to sustain its burden of proving that Mr. Briscoe’s driver’s license should be revoked in

Case Number 21-0991. The circuit court’s reinstatement order should have been affirmed

on this basis without engaging in the constitutional analysis upon which the circuit court

and the majority relied in reaching the same conclusion. For these reasons, I respectfully

concur with the majority’s opinion in this case.

                                             4