|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 383/94-1945
Filed January 17, 1996
RICHARD A. DRESSLER,
Appellant,
vs.
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert A.
Hutchison, Judge.
Appeal from district count denial of petition for a writ of
certiorari challenging constitutionality of agency action under
Iowa Code section 321.2O9(8) (1995). REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH
DIRECTIONS.
William Jeffrey Crispin of Wilson & Adams, P.C., Des Moines, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, David A. Ferree, Special
Assistant Attorney General, and Kerry Anderson, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Harris, P.J., and Larson, Lavorato, Snell, and
Andreasen, JJ.
2
LAVORATO, Justice.
Richard A. Dressler appeals from the district count's denial of
his Petition for a writ of certiorari against the Iowa Department of
Transportation (IDOT). In his petition, Dressler challenges as
unconstitutional 1993 Iowa Acts chapter 16, section 4, codified at
Iowa Code section 321.2O9(8) (1995). Section 321.2O9(8) authorizes
the IDOT to revoke the driver's license of a person convicted of
certain drug, drug tax, or drug-related offenses.
We reach only DressIer's contention that section 321.2O9(8)
violates double jeopardy guarantees. We conclude section 321.2O9(8)
is constitutionally infirm under the federal Double Jeopardy Clause.
We reverse the district court's order denying Dressler's petition for
a writ of certiorari. We remand to allow the district court to enter
an order granting the writ.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
In March 1994 Dressler pleaded guilty to the possession of a
controlled substance. See Iowa Code § 124.401(3). About six weeks
later, the IDOT notified Dressler in writing that his driving
privileges were revoked for 180 days pursuant to Iowa Code section
321.2O9(8). The notice also informed Dressler that he was not
entitled to a preliminary hearing on the matter.
Dressler then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the
district court. In the petition he asked the court to find section
321.209(8) unconstitutional on the three grounds he urges here.
Dressler appeals from the court's order dismissing the writ.
II. Scope of Review.
A writ of certiorari is proper under Iowa Rule of Civil
Procedure 306 when one "exercising judicial functions . . . is
alleged to have . . . acted illegally." Our review of certiorari
actions is generally at law. Grant v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 492 N.W.2d
683, 685 (Iowa 1992). Because Dressler alleges a constitutional
3
violation, our review is de novo. State v. Clarke, 475 N.W.2d 193,
194 (Iowa 1991).
III. Applicable Law.
Iowa Code section 321.2O9(8) pertinently provides that
[t]he department shall upon twenty days' notice and
without preliminary hearing revoke the license or operating
privilege of an operator upon receiving a record of the
operator's conviction for any of the following offenses,
when such conviction has become final:
[Sections 1-7 deal with vehicle-related offenses.]
8. A controlled substance offense under section
124.401, 124.401A, 124.402 or 124.403; a controlled
substance tax offense under chapter 453B; a drug or
drug-related offense under section 126.3; or an offense
under 21 U.S.C. ch. 13.
IV. Double Jeopardy.
The Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution provides that no
person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb." U.S. Const. amend. V. The protections
against double jeopardy are enforceable against the states through
the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution. Benton v.
Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 2062, 23 L.Ed.2d 707, 716
(1969).
The Double Jeopardy Clause is violated when (1) a second
prosecution for the same offense occurs after acquittal, (2) a second
prosecution for the same offense occurs after conviction, and (3)
multiple punishments occur for the same offense. North Carolina v.
Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076, 23 L.Ed.2d 656, 664-
65 (1969); State v. Taft, 506 N.W.2d 757, 760 (Iowa 1993).
Dressler's double jeopardy claim falls within the third
situation: multiple punishments occurring for the same offense. He
contends the State impermissibly inflicted two punishments upon him
for the same offense-possession of a controlled substance. Dressler
claims he was punished the first time when he was incarcerated and
paid a $250 fine and count costs for possession under section
4
124.401(3). He claims he was punished a second time when the IDOT
notified him that, without the benefit of a hearing, his license was
revoked for 180 days.
Dressler says that to escape double jeopardy concerns, a state
wishing to inflict postconviction punishment upon a defendant must do
so in a single proceeding. He contends that was not the case here,
because the license revocation followed Dressler's initial conviction
and sentence under section 124.401(3). This, he argues, constituted
multiple prosecution and punishment for the same offense in separate
proceedings, constitutionally prohibited by federal double jeopardy
guarantees.
To support his argument, Dressler relies heavily on two recent
United States Supreme Court decisions: United States v. Halper, 490
U.S. 435, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 104 L.Ed.24 487 (1989), and Montana
Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1937,
128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994). In Halper, the Court held that a civil
penalty, imposed after a criminal penalty, may constitute a second
punishment for double jeopardy purposes
when the sanction as applied in the individual case serves
the goals of punishment.
These goals are familiar. We have recognized in
other contexts that punishment serves the twin aims of
retribution and deterrence. Furthermore, "[r]etribution
and deterrence are not legitimate nonpunitive governmental
objectives." From these premises, it follows that a civil
sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a
remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also
serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is
punishment, as we have come to understand the term. We
therefore hold that under the Double Jeopardy Clause a
defendant who alreadv has been punished in a criminal
prosecution may not be subjected to an additional civil
sanction to the extent that the second sanction may not
fairly be characterized as remedial, but only as a deterrent
or retribution.
Halper, 490 U.S. at 448-49, 109 S.Ct. at 1901-02, 104 L.Ed.2d at 501-
02 (citations omitted).
In Kurth Ranch, the Court had before it a postconviction drug
tax assessment. Employing a different analysis from that articulated
in Halper, the
5
Court held that the tax constituted a second punishment. For that
reason, the tax had to be imposed during the first prosecution or not
at all. The Court characterized the postconviction proceeding to
collect a tax as "the functional equivalent of a successive criminal
prosecution that placed the Kurths in jeopardy a second time 'for the
same offence.'" Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 1948, 128
L.Ed.2d at 782. Simply put, as Dressler says, "a state wishing to
inflict postconviction punishment on a defendant must do so in a
single proceeding. Otherwise, punishment following an initial
conviction and sentencing is barred as double jeopardy."
The question boils down to whether the license revocation is
punitive or remedial.
The State concedes Dressler was sanctioned in the criminal case
before his license was revoked in a civil proceeding under section
321.2O9(8). But the State argues the subsequent revocation of
Dressler's license is not subsequent punishment for possession of a
controlled substance under section 124.401(3). The State strongly
asserts that the underlying purpose of section 321.2O9(8) is remedial
rather than punitive, designed solely for the safety of the public.
For that reason, the State concludes, no double jeopardy violation
occurred.
We think the question whether the revocation was punitive rather
than remedial is controlled by our recent decision in Hills v. Iowa
Department of Transportation, 534 N.W.2d 640 (Iowa 1993). In Hills,
the defendant was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while
intoxicated. After a search incident to arrest, the defendant was
also charged with possession of marijuana. See Iowa Code §
124.401(3). Before the defendant's pretrial conference -- at which
the defendant intended to plead guilty to the possession charge --
section 321.2O9(8) became effective. As a consequence, the IDOT
revoked the defendant's license
6
over her objection that to do so was an ex post facto application of
section 321.2O9(8).
On judicial revIew of the IDOT's decision, the district court
reversed. On appeal the IDOT argued that ex post facto protections
did not apply to a revocation based on a controlled substance
violation, because the revocation was a civil, rather than criminal,
penalty. See State v. Taggart, 186 Iowa 247, 254, 172 N.W. 299, 301
(1919) (ex post facto protections apply only to penal and criminal
actions, not civil actions). This is the same argument the State
posits against Dressler's double jeopardy claim here.
In rejecting this argument in Hills, we said the answer turned
on whether the legislative purpose underpinning the controlled
substance revocation is promotion of highway safety. In concluding
there was no direct connection between possession of controlled
substances, driving, and public safety, we said that
[p]ersons who illegally possess drugs are of course subject
to appropriate criminal punishment. But many such persons
choose not to drive. When they do not, they do not affect
highway safety. Any connection between drugs, driving, and
public safety is at most indirect. The amended statute
authorizing this license revocation was aimed essentially at
enhancing punishmen for controllcd substance possession.
Hills, 534 N.W.2d at 642 (emphasis added).
Our conclusion in Hills that section 321.209(8) enhances
punishment of a controlled substance possession dispenses with the
State's assertion that this section is not a penal statute. Because
section 321.2O9(8) twice punishes Dressler for the same offense --
possession of a controlled substance -- in a separate proceeding, we
conclude it unconstitutionally contravenes Dressler's double jeopardy
guarantees.
V. Disposition.
We conclude that section 321.2O9(8) violates double jeopardy
principles by twice punishing Dressler for possession of a controlled
substance in separate
7
proceedings. We therefore reverse the district court's order denying
Dressler's petition for a writ of certiorari. We remand to allow the
district court to enter an order granting the writ.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
|