ILNews

COA: Lifetime suspension of driving privileges is not a punishment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a man’s claim that his lifetime suspension of driving privileges is cruel and unusual punishment, upholding the suspension. They held the suspension is not punitive.

Timothy Hazelwood is a habitual traffic violator who has had his license suspended 17 times since 1991. He’s been convicted several times of driving while driving privileges are suspended. He was convicted in 1998 of Class C felony operating a vehicle after his license had been suspended for life and was sentenced to three years in prison.

In 2012, he sought to reinstate his driving privileges and overturn the lifetime suspension. The trial court denied the petition, saying I.C. 9-30-10-14 prevented it from reinstating his license and that the statute was not unconstitutional.

In Timothy Ladana Hazelwood v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1305-MI-239, Hazelwood admits that under I.C. 9-30-10-14 and -15, he cannot have his driving privileges reinstated, but he claimed the statutory prohibition is unconstitutional as applied to him.

He argued that by preventing him from ever having his driver’s license reinstated, the state is effectively continuing to punish him for previous traffic-related offenses. He also claimed the suspension with any possible reinstatement is cruel and unusual punishment.

The Court of Appeals rejected his claims, noting it has previously ruled there is no absolute right to obtain and keep a driver’s license. Whether it is for life or a limited time, the suspension of one’s driving privileges does not constitute punishment, Judge Paul Mathias wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • right to liberty and pursuit of happiness
    To claim a lifetime suspension of ones drivers license is "not punishment" is nothing short of ludicrous. It flies arbitrarily in the face of everything that is right and just. I am in this boat as well. My last drinking/driving offense was 20 years ago. I am rehabilitated and a threat to no one. I continue to pat my taxes and I am a productive citizen. Yet, I cannot drive. Because of that, I cannot find a job, get my minor son to and from his activities, or even transport myself or family members to the hospital in the event of a medical emergency. A lifetime suspension of my drivers license for something that occurred 20 years ago is cruel - it is unusual and it is punishment (regardless of what the courts say.
  • hazelwood.vs.state
    I can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT