At Issue
Reconsidering the Ramifications of Revocation
By Christopher A. Mutschler
Have you ever considered how many different statutes impose driver
license revocation as a penalty? Have you considered the effect these
revocations have on jail overcrowding when people drive automobiles
after being revoked?
Drivers' licenses may be revoked for violating laws unrelated to
traffic offenses - including sex crimes, failure to pay child support,
failure to pay nontraffic forfeitures, underage drinking, truancy and
the like. Further, there are nearly 300,000 revocations and suspensions
every year in Wisconsin. It is easy to see that license revocations
place a significant burden on the court and corrections systems.
The Wisconsin Legislature seeks to remedy confusion surrounding
driver license revocation and jail overcrowding by streamlining the
state's complex suspension and revocation laws.
Problems with Wisconsin's license revocation laws do not just burden
the courts and jails. Law enforcement officers in the field often have
difficulty determining whether a driver should be issued a civil or
criminal charge for an Operating After Revocation (OAR) offense. Common
law interpretations have become so complex that appellate districts have
issued conflicting opinions. Additionally, complex questions have arisen
as to the interplay between other statutes and OAR, like the effect of
Habitual Traffic Offender status on civil OARs, the effect of a failure
to reinstate a license, whether intervening reasons for revocation taint
an otherwise civil OAR and make it criminal, and so on.
Task force identifies problems
These problems finally reached a point where Gov. Thompson appointed
a task force of law enforcement officers, prosecutors, public defenders,
legislators and law school professors to examine the problems
surrounding the OAR law. Among its key findings, the task force
recognizes:
- The law is "broken" because it is burdened by confusing language and
complex court decisions.
- There is "absolute confusion" among police officers, lawyers, judges
and the public about the imposition of criminal penalties on what
otherwise would be noncriminal conduct if the defendant's license status
was different.
- Innumerable nondriving offenses can form the basis of license
revocation. (The task force discovered that 51.5 percent of all license
revocations were for nontraffic offenses.)
- Because of its complexity, it is nearly impossible for law
enforcement officers in the field to make the correct charging
decision.
- People continue to drive after revocation because they need
transportation and continue to lose their licenses for years in a
seemingly endless downward spiral.
Legislature to consider proposed bill
To end this confusion, the Legislature will soon consider a bill to
streamline the state's suspension and revocation laws and decriminalize
much of the criminal OAR conduct now on the books. Some of the more
significant changes the Legislature will contemplate include:
Revising most "revocations" to make them "suspensions."
Making all "suspensions" civil in order to decriminalize certain
conduct, but making third-time driving after suspension a criminal
offense to punish habitual conduct.
- Making all "revocations" criminal offenses, and limiting revocations
to serious driving offenses such as drunk driving, hit and run, eluding
an officer, repeat operation while suspended and the like.
- Recategorizing operating while suspended offenses as minor
violations, thereby reducing the number of people in habitual traffic
offender status.
- Lessening the financial burden imposed in suspension cases so that
fewer individuals are suspended for failing to pay forfeitures.
- Ensuring that individuals who fail to comply with an alcohol
assessment or treatment program after being convicted of drunk driving
have their licenses revoked and not suspended.
Christopher A. Mutschler , Marquette 1991, is a
partner in Anderegg & Mutschler LLP, Fond du Lac.
These changes have not yet been introduced on the floor of the
Legislature. The Legislative Reference Bureau currently is working on
its fourth draft of the bill to ensure that all of the bugs are worked
out. It is expected, however, that a vote on this legislation could come
before Dec. 31.
These changes do not compromise the effect of punishing individuals
when they have failed to comply with a court order, pay a fine, been
truant or the like, because malfeasances such as these still carry
sanctions. Even in those few circumstances where license revocation may
be eliminated as a sanction, numerous other consequences still await the
bad actor which either punish or compel a change in behavior. The
proposed changes will not usher in an era of lawlessness; they will work
to make less Draconian the long-term consequences noncriminal citizens
have suffered for too long.
Wisconsin
Lawyer