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

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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT