State vs. Green

The Third District Court of Appeal ruled that a motorist's driving privilege that has been revoked for five years due to being classified as a habitual traffic offender remains revoked even after the expiration of the five year period absent affirmative steps on the motorist's part to reinstate his/her driver's license. It was error for the circuit court to reduce the charge to driving with suspended license rather than unlawful driving as a habitual traffic offender.

Conclusion

The correct charge of a motorist in this situation is unlawful driving as a habitual traffic offender, §322.34(5), F.S., not driving with a suspended license, §322.34(2), F.S. A revoked license remains revoked until restored. The time period is important only for the eligibility of restoration, not for automatic restoration.

Analysis

In 1989, a motorist was classified as a habitual traffic offender and his driver's license was revoked. The projected revocation was five years. In 1998, the motorist was charged with unlawful driving as a habitual traffic offender. He argued that his revocation ended in 1994, despite never seeking reinstatement of his driver's license. The trial court accepted this argument and reduced the charge to driving with a suspended license. It was error to do so.

The motorist is not eligible to be relicensed for a period of five years from the date of revocation. After the revocation period ends, the motorist must petition the Department for reinstatement. His driving privilege was terminated upon revocation, not merely temporarily withdrawn. The license is not automatically restored at the end of the five year period. Although, the motorist was eligible to restore his license, it remained revoked simply because he never took any affirmative steps to seek reinstatement of his driving privilege. Therefore, the correct charge was unlawful driving as a habitual traffic offender, §322.34(5), F.S.

The holding of this case reflects the Department's treatment of a driver whose license is suspended, or revoked, but never reinstated. This case also supports the Department's position that when an individual is suspended or revoked for DUI, a violation of §316.193, F.S., that the driving privileges are not reinstated until the driver satisfies the department's requirements and has his driving privileges restored. Therefore, under §322.34(9)(a), F.S., the vehicle, which is being driven by this individual, is subject to forfeiture if the driver is again driving under the influence.

Approved by:
Enoch J. Whitney
General Counsel

Written by:
Kevin Hunnam
Certified Legal Intern