Oklahoma Administrative Code Title 40 - Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence
1. Bailey v. State ex rel. Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence (2022)
Facts:
The Board adopted emergency rules regarding alcohol testing procedures. Some drivers had their licenses revoked under these rules and challenged the validity, claiming the Board violated the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act by failing to properly notify the public.
Legal Issue:
Was the Board’s adoption of emergency rules valid, or was it void because of an alleged willful violation of the Open Meeting Act?
Outcome:
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the failure to notify the Secretary of State did not constitute a willful violation. The rules were upheld, and the license revocations based on them were valid.
Significance:
Clarified that procedural mistakes by the Board are not automatically “willful” and reinforced the validity of emergency rulemaking when the intent to comply with the law is present.
2. Sample v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety (2016)
Facts:
Eric Sample’s driver’s license was revoked after a breath test. He challenged the revocation, claiming the testing equipment used was not formally approved by the Board under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Legal Issue:
Can the Board approve devices for alcohol testing by resolution, or must it follow the formal administrative rulemaking process?
Outcome:
The court found that informal approval was insufficient. Devices must be formally approved through proper rulemaking. Sample’s revocation was reversed due to procedural defects.
Significance:
Showed that the Board must strictly follow administrative procedures for equipment approval, highlighting the importance of formal rulemaking in Title 40.
3. Ward v. Department of Public Safety
Facts:
Ward challenged the use of a specific breath testing device (Intoxilyzer 5000-D) in his license revocation case. He argued the device had not been properly approved according to Title 40 rules.
Legal Issue:
Does the failure to approve the testing device in compliance with Title 40 rules make the license revocation invalid?
Outcome:
Courts have consistently held that non-compliance with Board rules regarding device approval can invalidate license revocations. Ward’s case highlighted the need for strict adherence to procedural and equipment approval standards.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that proper adoption of testing equipment rules is essential to uphold DUI enforcement actions.
4. Administrative Challenges Regarding Rulemaking Procedures
Facts:
Individuals or entities affected by Title 40 rules frequently petition the Board, arguing that the Board failed to follow the proper procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act or exceeded its statutory authority.
Legal Issue:
Are Board rules valid if the Board fails to follow proper rulemaking procedures or applies rules beyond its statutory authority?
Outcome:
Courts examine whether the Board followed all procedural requirements and whether the Board acted within the scope of its statutory authority. Failure to comply can result in rules being invalidated.
Significance:
These challenges ensure that the Board’s rules are legally enforceable and protect individuals from arbitrary or improper rule enforcement.
5. Internal Administrative Challenges Under Title 40
Facts:
Many disputes involve individuals petitioning the Board for declaratory rulings on how Title 40 rules apply to their cases, particularly regarding breath or blood testing procedures.
Legal Issue:
Can the Board clarify or modify its rules’ application through administrative rulings, and are these rulings binding?
Outcome:
The Board can issue declaratory rulings that clarify rule application. Courts will generally defer to the Board if it followed proper procedure.
Significance:
Shows that administrative processes within Title 40 are an important tool for dispute resolution and ensuring proper enforcement of alcohol and drug testing regulations.
✅ Key Takeaways from These Cases:
The Board must follow proper administrative procedures for rule adoption, equipment approval, and enforcement.
Emergency rules are valid if procedural errors are not willful.
Equipment and devices for alcohol/drug testing must be formally approved, not just informally adopted.
Administrative challenges can be brought in court or before the Board to clarify or contest rules.
Compliance with Open Meeting Act and Administrative Procedures Act is critical for the legal enforceability of Title 40 rules.
RELATED Blog
comments