Idaho

CASES
  • Click here to download all Idaho cases

  • Archer v. State, Dept. of Transp., 145 Idaho 617 (2008)

    Driver sought review of Transportation Department's suspension of commercial driver's license based on driver's failed breath test for blood alcohol concentration. The Sixth Judicial District Court, Bannock County, Peter D. McDermott, J., reinstated license. State appealed. The Court of Appeals, Perry, J., held that absence of a calibration record attached to breath test results did not establish testing not in accordance with proscribed methods. Reversed.

  • Atwood v. State, Transp. Dept., --- P.3d ---- (2014)

    Licensee appealed the suspension of his driver's license. The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Bonneville County, Joel E. Tingey, J., affirmed, and licensee appealed. The Court of Appeals, Gratton, J., held that officer's sworn statement providing that corporal instructed licensee to not eat, drink, or belch for fifteen minutes, that corporal observed licensee during the fifteen-minute observation period, and that corporal administered two evidentiary breath samples that read .084/.082 was sufficient to provide Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) with statutory authority and satisfied the statutory requirements to trigger licensee's driver's license suspension. Affirmed.

  • Buell v. Idaho Dept. of Transp., 151 Idaho 257, 254 P.3d 1253 (Idaho Ct. App. 2011)

    A commercial licensee's failure to take an alcohol breath test was dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement, and thus he was disqualified based on his DUI conviction. After the conviction the licensee received notice that he was disqualified from operating a commercial vehicle. This was not a violation of the licensee's due process rights because the statutes were not ambiguous. Further, the administrative disqualification of licensee's CDL following a conviction for DUI does not violate the double jeopardy clause because the legislature intended for the one year CDL disqualification to be civil not criminal. A CDL disqualification was not so punitive either in purpose or effect as to transform the civil remedy into a criminal penalty and the CDL disqualification is not historically viewed as a punishment. The disqualification, while intended to deter future wrongdoing, also serves to provide for the safety of the public at-large.

  • In re Driver's License Suspension of Besaw, Not Reported in P.3d (2013)

    George Joseph Besaw, Jr. appeals from the district court's decision on judicial review affirming a hearing officer's order that sustained the suspension of Besaw's driver's license for failing a breath alcohol concentration test.

  • In re Johnson, 153 Idaho 246 (2012)

    Motorist filed petition for judicial review of administrative suspension of driver's license following arrest for driving under influence (DUI) and sought stay of suspension pending review. The Judicial District Court, Latah County, John R. Stegner, J., granted stay and vacated suspension. Department of Transportation appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Perry, Judge Pro Tem, held that: [1] petition for judicial review filed prior to hearing officer's ruling was premature, and [2] DOT was not entitled to award of attorney fees under statute governing same in administrative proceeding or civil judicial proceeding. Judgment of District Court vacated; appeal dismissed.

  • In re Trottier, 155 Idaho 17 (2013)

    Idaho Transportation Department served driver with notice of administrative license suspension and lifetime disqualification of his commercial driver's license (CDL) after he was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) and failed a blood alcohol concentration test. Driver requested a hearing, and hearing officer upheld the license suspension and sustained the lifetime CDL disqualification. Upon judicial review, the Second Judicial District Court, Latah County, John R. Stegner, District Judge, vacated hearing officer's decision. Transportation Department appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Gratton, J., held that: [1] evidence was sufficient to support hearing officer's determination that police officer had legal cause to stop driver, although nighttime videotape of driver making right turn and apparently crossing over centerline was difficult to discern; [2] evidence was sufficient to support hearing officer's determination that police officer adequately monitored driver during traffic stop for the 15-minute monitoring requirement for blood alcohol testing; and [3] driver's due process rights in the CDL proceeding were not violated. Reversed.

  • Peck v. State, Dept. of Transp., 153 Idaho 37 (2012)

    Licensee sought judicial review of administrative order suspending driving license for driving while intoxicated. The District Court of the First Judicial District, Bonner County, Steven C. Verby, J., affirmed the suspension, and licensee appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Gutierrez, J., held that: [1] administrative hearing requested by licensee to challenge suspension was held within the statutorily allowable time frame; [2] District Court was required to affirm suspension, absent a showing that any substantial right of licensee had been prejudiced; [3] driver's license suspension advisory form was not deficient, and thus, did not constitute a violation of licensee's due process rights; [4] licensee's disqualification from driving a commercial vehicle was not subject to appellate review; [5] hearing officer's finding that the point of contact between driver's licensee and the arresting officer occurred in Idaho was supported by substantial and competent evidence; [6] breath test variations did not facially undermine their credibility; and [7] hearing officer's finding that the weight of the evidence in arresting officer's affidavit was sufficient to uphold a license suspension was supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record. Affirmed.

  • Platz v. State, 154 Idaho 960 (2013)

    The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) appealed from consolidated decisions of the District Court, Second Judicial District, Latah County, John R. Stegner, J., vacating the administrative license suspension (ALS) of motorist's driver's license after he failed a blood alcohol concentration test, and vacating order disqualifying motorist's commercial driver's license (CDL) based upon the failed blood alcohol concentration test. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Gratton, J., held that: [1] hearing officer's determination that state police trooper's administration of breath test complied with 15-minute monitoring requirement was supported by substantial evidence in ALS hearing; [2] district court had authority to stay the ALS; and [3] CDL hearing officer's refusal to relitigate issue of whether motorist failed valid blood alcohol concentration test did not violate motorist's statutory or due process rights. Reversed.

  • Wanner v. State, Dept. of Transp., 150 Idaho 164 (2011)

    Motorist appealed from the suspension of his driver's license by Idaho Department of Transportation (IDOT) that followed his failure of a breath test. The District Court, Sixth Judicial District, Franklin County, David C. Nye, District Judge, reversed IDOT's decision. IDOT appealed. The Supreme Court, Horton, J., held that motorist failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to claim that notice of license suspension provided insufficient notice, for due process purposes, of one-year disqualification from operating a commercial vehicle. Decision of district court reversed with directions.

  • Williams v. State, 153 Idaho 380 (2012)

    Following his second conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), driver was issued lifetime disqualification by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), prohibiting driver from holding commercial driver's license (CDL). On petition for judicial review of hearing officer's decision upholding driver's disqualification, the District Court, First Judicial District, Kootenai County, Lansing L. Haynes, J., affirmed. Driver appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Gratton, C.J., held that: [1] lifetime CDL disqualification was civil in nature and did not rise to the level of criminal punishment for double jeopardy purposes; [2] statute providing for lifetime CDL disqualification was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to driver; [3] driver was not deprived of substantive due process by lifetime CDL disqualification; and [4] lifetime CDL disqualification did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Affirmed.

STATUTES

Adoption of Federal Regulations

What Constitutes a CMV

Major Disqualifying Offenses

Major Disqualifying Offenses (Alcohol)

Serious Traffic Offenses

Identification of Conviction

Masking Convictions

  • No reference

10-Day Posting Requirement

Other CDL Provisions