South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog

Yesterday, in Hipp v. SCDMV, the S.C. Supreme Court upheld a circuit court's decision to enjoin the DMV's delayed suspension of Charles Hipp's driver's license 12 years after his DUI conviction. In 1993 Hipp was convicted of DUI in Georgia, but was a South Carolina resident. He paid a fine and fulfilled all conditions required by the Georgia court. 12 years later, in 2005, the South Carolina DMV suddenly decided to suspend his license based on the 1993 conviction. Hipp filed a declaratory judgment action to enjoin the suspension, which was granted by the circuit court, and upheld by the S.C. Supreme Court.

The circuit court cited three grounds for enjoining suspension of Respondent’s driver’s license: (1) that the applicable statute is ambiguous; (2) the doctrine of laches; and (3) that suspension twelve years after conviction violates the “fundamental fairness” required by due process. We find the circuit court’s conclusion as to fundamental fairness to be persuasive and so, affirm.[1]

A person’s interest in his driver’s license is property that a state may not take away without satisfying the requirements of due process. Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed2d 90 (1971). Due process is violated when a party is denied fundamental fairness. City of Spartanburg v. Parris, 251 S.C. 187, 191, 161 S.E.2d 228, 230 (1968).

In State v. Chavis, 261 S.C. 408, 200 S.E.2d 390 (1973), South Carolina held that fundamental fairness was not violated by a suspension after a one-year delay. So, we now know that a one-year delay is ok, but a 12 year delay is not. What the opinion does not address is what the result is when the driver turns in their license to the clerk at the time of conviction, in which case S.C. law says that the suspension period runs from the date of conviction. In General Sessions, there is a DMV form that must be filled out and given to the clerk, which should serve as evidence of the defendant's relinquishment of their license.

I predict that a declaratory judgment action should also be successful where the DMV delays the license suspension and does not run it from the date of conviction per the statute, where the defendant surrenders his or her license and/or fills out the DMV form at the time of conviction.