Utah Court of Appeals
Does Utah's DUI license suspension procedure violate due process? Hess v. Blackstock Explained
Summary
Hess was arrested for DUI and his driver license was suspended when he failed to request a hearing. He challenged the suspension, arguing the Division’s procedures violated the Utah Administrative Procedures Act by not complying with section 63-46b-3’s commencement requirements. The district court affirmed the suspension, finding the procedures constituted an emergency action exempt from those requirements.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Hess v. Blackstock, the Utah Court of Appeals examined whether the Driver License Division’s procedures for suspending licenses after DUI arrests comply with due process requirements under the Utah Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA).
Background and Facts
Michael Hess was arrested for driving under the influence, and the arresting officer served him with notice of the Division’s intent to suspend his driving privilege under Utah Code section 53-3-223. The notice informed Hess of his right to request a hearing, but he failed to do so. Consequently, the Division suspended his license for one year. Hess appealed to district court, arguing the Division lacked jurisdiction because it had not properly initiated the suspension process under Utah Code section 63-46b-3.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether DUI license suspensions must comply with UAPA’s standard procedural requirements for commencing administrative actions, or whether they qualify as emergency actions exempt from those requirements under Utah Code section 63-46b-20.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying a correction-of-error standard for statutory interpretation. The court found that Utah Code section 53-3-221 specifically authorizes the Division to use emergency procedures under section 63-46b-20 for DUI-related suspensions. While emergency orders typically require subsequent formal proceedings under section 63-46b-20(3), the court determined that section 53-3-221 establishes a different, more specific procedure where the burden falls on the licensee to request a hearing within ten days of arrest.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that Utah’s DUI suspension process satisfies due process through its emergency action framework. The court applied the principle that specific statutory provisions govern over general ones, finding the detailed hearing procedures in sections 53-3-221 and 53-3-223 control over UAPA’s general requirements. For practitioners, this underscores the importance of timely requesting hearings and understanding that different administrative contexts may have specialized procedural requirements that supersede general administrative law principles.
Case Details
Case Name
Hess v. Blackstock
Citation
2003 UT App 38
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20010621-CA
Date Decided
February 13, 2003
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The Utah Driver License Division’s DUI license suspension procedures comply with due process requirements because they qualify as emergency administrative actions under Utah Code sections 53-3-221 and 63-46b-20.
Standard of Review
Correction-of-error standard for statutory interpretation
Practice Tip
When challenging administrative license suspensions, carefully examine whether the agency properly followed emergency procedures under Utah Code section 63-46b-20 and the specific statutory scheme governing the particular type of suspension.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.