MacKey v. Montrym
Headline: Court upholds Massachusetts law allowing automatic 90-day driver's license suspension for refusing a breath test, reversing a lower court and permitting summary suspension without a prior hearing.
Holding: The Court held that Massachusetts may suspend a driver's license for ninety days after refusal of a breath test without a prior hearing because prompt post-suspension administrative review meets due process.
- Allows states to suspend drivers' licenses for 90 days after refusing breath tests.
- Drivers can seek prompt administrative hearings after surrendering their licenses.
- Encourages breath testing by creating immediate consequence for refusal.
Summary
Background
Donald Montrym, a driver in Massachusetts, was arrested after a nighttime collision and was asked to take a breath-analysis test at a police station. He initially refused the test, then, after speaking with a lawyer about twenty minutes later, asked for the test and the police declined. A state court later dismissed the criminal charge, apparently because the police refused to give the test when requested. The Registrar suspended Montrym’s license for ninety days under a Massachusetts statute that requires suspension upon receipt of a sworn, witnessed police report of refusal.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court applied the three-part Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to decide what process is due. The Court held that the sworn, witnessed police report and an immediate postsuspension 'walk-in' hearing before the Registrar provide a reasonably reliable basis to reduce errors. The Court emphasized the State’s strong interest in highway safety, deterrence, and obtaining early test results, and found the Massachusetts scheme not materially different from similar summary suspension statutes the Court had upheld.
Real world impact
Under this decision, a driver who refuses a breath test can be summarily suspended for up to ninety days without a presuspension evidentiary hearing, though the driver can seek a prompt administrative hearing after surrendering the license. The ruling allows states to rely on officer reports and quick administrative review to remove suspected noncooperating drivers from the road while criminal charges proceed separately. The lower court’s classwide injunction was reversed and the case sent back for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stewart, joined by three Justices, dissented, arguing that basic fairness requires a prior chance to be heard, that the post-suspension 'walk-in' remedy may be illusory without notice, and that suspensions here punish refusal rather than prove intoxication.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?