Court Summaries
| Jurisdiction | Wyoming,United States |
| Pages | 46 |
| Publication year | 2011 |
| Citation | Vol. 34 No. 2 Pg. 46 |
| Date | 01 April 2011 |
Vol. 34, No. 2, 46. Court Summaries
Issue: April, 2011
Kevin Bowen v. State of Wyoming
Department of Transportation
2011 WY1
No. S-10-0063
January 4, 2011
This is an interesting case of collateral estoppel. On January 8, 2009, Kevin Bowen was stopped and ultimately charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol. His breath test registered a blood alcohol content of .13. In the criminal case Mr. Bowen moved to suppress the breath test on the grounds that the officer was not properly trained on the Intoximeter EC/IR, the instrument used to measure his blood alcohol content. The criminal court denied the motion. The administrative hearing came after the decision on the motion to suppress in the trial court where Mr. Bowen made the same argument. The hearing examiner in the administrative hearing relied upon the trial court's finding and conclusion and held the trooper was properly trained to administer the test. The issue on appeal is whether collateral estoppel could be used by the hearing examiner to reach its conclusion.
Collateral estoppel applies when: (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with issues presented in the present action; (2) the prior adjudication resulted in a judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; (4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding. The curious thing about this case is that there is not a similar case in Wyoming or apparently anywhere else, so this is a case of first impression nationwide. There are numerous cases holding that collateral estoppel should not be used to prevent the administrative hearing when irregularities occur in the criminal case. For example:
* Huelsman v. Kansas Dep't Revenue, 980 P.2d 1022, 1025-27 (Kan. 1999), is a case where the evidence was suppressed for the DUI for lack of probable cause for stop, but that did not collateral estop the State of Kansas from proceeding with the administrative hearing where the State sought to introduce breath test under implied consent law.
* State v.Young, 530 N.W.2d 269,273-277 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995), is a case where the court held that a criminal court does not under collateral estoppel have to accept as binding the determination of the administrative law judge in license suspension proceedings.
At first blush, those cases would seem to indicate that collateral estoppel may not be used to prevent either the criminal court or the administrative body from making its own findings. The Wyoming Supreme Court held that the issues of this particular case meet every element of collateral estoppel so it will be applied. So once the issue was decided by the trial court, the administrative law judge could treat that as collateral estoppel.
Edward Elliot v. State of Wyoming
2011 WY32
S-10-0074
February 24, 2011
The question in this case is the opposite of the case cited above. It is the opposite ruling and the opposite procedural posture of Kevin Bowen v. State of Wyoming Department of Transportation, 2011 WY 1 (Wyo. 2011). In this case, the hearing examiner at the driver's license suspension hearing, which occurred first, found no probable cause for the driving under the influence stop and or arrest; therefore, there was no driver's license suspension. Mr. Elliot attempted to use that decision in the Circuit Court to suppress the evidence in the driving under the influence criminal case. The basis was collateral estoppel. The Circuit Judge found probable cause and refused to treat the findings and conclusions of law of the hearing examiner as conclusive. The District Court affirmed, as did the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Mr. Elliot argued that the State of Wyoming is collaterally estopped from pursuing a misdemeanor driving under the influence prosecution against him because the hearing officer in proceedings contesting the Department of Transportation driver's license suspension found that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest for driving under the influence. The elements of collateral estoppel as outlined in the Bowen case, cited above, are (1) whether the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the issue presented in the present action; (2) whether the prior adjudication resulted in a judgment on the merits; (3) whether the party against whom the collateral estoppel is...
To continue reading
Request your trial