Ferrei v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ferrei v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles

147 So. 3d 1031, 2014 WL 3887855, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12227

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 8, 2014

Docket2D13-5378

StatusPublished

This text of 147 So. 3d 1031 (Ferrei v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ferrei v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 147 So. 3d 1031, 2014 WL 3887855, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12227 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

LaROSE, Judge.

Emmy Pankau seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order denying her motion for clarification. We have jurisdiction, see Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(B), and grant the petition.

In Pankau v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 91 So.3d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), cause dismissed, 100 So.3d 1149 (Fla.2012), we quashed a circuit court order that denied Ms. Pankau certio-rari relief from an administrative decision upholding the suspension of her driver’s license. See §§ 322.2615(1), (6), (14), .31, Fla. Stat. (2010). We directed the circuit court to consider whether an adequate mechanism existed for Ms. Pankau to challenge the lawfulness of the underlying traffic stop. Pankau, 91 So.3d at 923-24. The circuit court then reconsidered Ms. *1032 Pankau’s certiorari petition, quashed the Department’s final order upholding Ms. Pankau’s license suspension, and remanded the cause to the Department for further proceedings.

In light of our holding in McLaughlin v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 128 So.3d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), and because Ms. Pankau’s license suspension period expired during the review period, Ms. Pankau moved for clarification. The circuit court denied her motion and she petitioned this court for second-tier certiorari review to determine whether the circuit court afforded due process and applied the correct law. See Forth v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, — So.3d —, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Under McLaughlin, 128 So.3d at 815, and Forth, — So.3d -, at *1, we held that when the Department administratively suspends a driver’s license, and the suspension period expires while a matter is under review but the department seeks further formal administrative hearings, the circuit court should quash the administrative order, rather than quash and remand for further proceedings. “No further proceedings are necessary on remand because the issue of the validity of the suspension of [the] driver’s license is moot.” McLaughlin, 128 So.3d at 815. The circuit court in this case failed to apply the correct law when it remanded the moot issue to the administrative tribunal. Forth, — So.3d -, at *1.

Petition granted; order quashed to the extent that it remanded the case.

ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LaROSE, Judge.

Emmy Pankau seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order denying her motion for clarification. We have jurisdiction, see Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(B), and grant the petition.

In Pankau v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 91 So.3d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), cause dismissed, 100 So.3d 1149 (Fla.2012), we quashed a circuit court order that denied Ms. Pankau certio-rari relief from an administrative decision upholding the suspension of her driver’s license. See §§ 322.2615(1), (6), (14), .31, Fla. Stat. (2010). We directed the circuit court to consider whether an adequate mechanism existed for Ms. Pankau to challenge the lawfulness of the underlying traffic stop. Pankau, 91 So.3d at 923-24. The circuit court then reconsidered Ms. *1032 Pankau’s certiorari petition, quashed the Department’s final order upholding Ms. Pankau’s license suspension, and remanded the cause to the Department for further proceedings.

In light of our holding in McLaughlin v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 128 So.3d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), and because Ms. Pankau’s license suspension period expired during the review period, Ms. Pankau moved for clarification. The circuit court denied her motion and she petitioned this court for second-tier certiorari review to determine whether the circuit court afforded due process and applied the correct law. See Forth v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, — So.3d —, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Under McLaughlin, 128 So.3d at 815, and Forth, — So.3d -, at *1, we held that when the Department administratively suspends a driver’s license, and the suspension period expires while a matter is under review but the department seeks further formal administrative hearings, the circuit court should quash the administrative order, rather than quash and remand for further proceedings. “No further proceedings are necessary on remand because the issue of the validity of the suspension of [the] driver’s license is moot.” McLaughlin, 128 So.3d at 815. The circuit court in this case failed to apply the correct law when it remanded the moot issue to the administrative tribunal. Forth, — So.3d -, at *1.

Petition granted; order quashed to the extent that it remanded the case.

ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 3d 1031, 2014 WL 3887855, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferrei-v-department-of-highway-safety-motor-vehicles-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack