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.

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.

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