{
  "id": 1451160,
  "name": "Bruce Lee SIEVERS v. CITY OF FORT SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sievers v. City of Fort Smith",
  "decision_date": "1995-03-27",
  "docket_number": "94-958",
  "first_page": "136",
  "last_page": "142",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "320 Ark. 136"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "894 S.W.2d 940"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-16-912",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-16-206",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-16-303",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)(l)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(a)(1)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-16-306",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "841 S.W.2d 589",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1898915,
        1898910
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/310/0446-01",
        "/ark/310/0713-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 Ark. 713",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1898910
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/310/0713-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-16-303",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)(l)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 550,
    "char_count": 11353,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.867,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0544977718778199
    },
    "sha256": "3d774523fd0b64bf778c8277a6829dc5c8d50f3e23e5ea4c3226d142f30f864e",
    "simhash": "1:9ebcf01ddf5b6863",
    "word_count": 1867
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:37.743482+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Dudley, Newbern, and Glaze, JJ., dissent.",
      "Dudley and Newbern, JJ., join this dissent."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Bruce Lee SIEVERS v. CITY OF FORT SMITH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert L. Brown, Justice.\nAppellant Bruce Lee Sievers was found guilty in Ft. Smith Municipal Court of driving with a suspended driver\u2019s license. At the time, he had a valid Arkansas driver\u2019s license but a suspended Oklahoma driver\u2019s license. He appealed to Sebastian County Circuit Court, and the municipal court judgment was affirmed. He has two points on appeal from the circuit court judgment. He first argues that he did not waive his right to a jury trial. The State admits error on this point and concedes that the matter should be reversed and remanded for a jury trial. We agree that the failure to provide a jury trial was error. See Ark. R. Crim. R 31.2; Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713, 841 S.W.2d 589 (1992). Sievers also contends that the circuit court erred in not dismissing the charge and in entering a judgment of conviction based on a suspended license in Oklahoma because the Oklahoma suspension was contrary to Arkansas law. We agree with Sievers that a dismissal was appropriate under these facts, and we reverse and dismiss.\nOn November 7, 1993, Sievers was arrested for driving with a suspended license. At the bench trial in circuit court, Arkansas State Police Sergeant Ron Lemons testified that on that date he saw Sievers driving his car above the 55 mph speed limit. Due to other traffic on the roadway, he was unable to check Sievers\u2019s speed with his radar. He radioed State Trooper Michael Springer to \u201cpace\u201d Sievers and to stop him. Sergeant Lemons further advised Trooper Springer that Sievers was known to him as Jed Stewart Lineberry and that he had a suspended license in Oklahoma under one or both names. Sergeant Lemons added that he had stopped Sievers in February of 1993 on suspicion of DWI. He said that at that time Sievers did not have an Arkansas driver\u2019s license and that his Oklahoma license was shown as suspended. He testified that Sievers was again stopped in September of 1993 for reckless driving and that he had a valid Arkansas driver\u2019s license on that occasion. The status of his Oklahoma license was not checked in connection with the September stop.\nTrooper Michael Springer testified next. He stated that he stopped Sievers on November 7, 1993, when he was advised by Sergeant Lemons that Sievers was speeding and driving on a suspended Oklahoma license. He testified that after he stopped Sievers, he ascertained that his Oklahoma driver\u2019s license privileges had been suspended. He stated that Sievers did have a current and valid Arkansas driver\u2019s license. At that point the City introduced into evidence a certified copy of Sievers\u2019s Arkansas driver\u2019s license application dated March 10, 1993. On that application Sievers signed the following oath:\nOATH. This is to certify that all information on this application is true and correct and that my driving privilege is not suspended or revoked in this state or any other state nor do I hold a driver\u2019s license from any state other than Arkansas.\nThe application also requested the following information to which Sievers replied:\nHave you ever been licensed in any other state or country. Yes.\nIf yes, where: OK.\nHe did not answer the question about whether his driver\u2019s license had ever been suspended or revoked in another state. The record does not show that he was ever charged with perjury in obtaining his Arkansas license. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-16-306 (1987).\nTrooper Springer testified that following the stop he checked with the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety for the driving record of Bruce Lee Sievers and Jed Stewart Lineberry. On November 15, 1993, he received documentation from the Oklahoma Department showing the current status of Jed Stewart Lineberry\u2019s license as \u201cDriver Improvement Suspension.\u201d This document gave an expiration date of March 31, 1985. Another document from Oklahoma showed no traffic violations, accidents, or departmental actions of record after June 25, 1983. An order of suspension dated June 25, 1983, was also introduced into evidence by the City. That order notified Jed Stewart Lineberry that his driving privileges would be terminated effective July 25, 1983, and that he would be eligible for reinstatement six months from the date his license was surrendered. He was also notified that a $25.00 reinstatement fee would be charged.\nThe state trooper then identified an Oklahoma traffic record on Bruce Lee Sievers which stated that his Oklahoma driver\u2019s license had been suspended on September 21, 1984. That driver\u2019s license had been used as bail and surrendered on August 27, 1984, for failure to appear. The record indicated an expiration date on the license as 00/00/00. Sievers was notified by mail on September 20, 1984, that his Oklahoma driver\u2019s license had been suspended effective September 21, 1984. Trooper Springer acknowledged that the points listed against Sievers/Lineberry on the Oklahoma records would have been over ten years old at the time of the traffic stop on November 7, 1993, and \u201ctoo old to count against him\u201d in Arkansas.\nAt the conclusion of the hearing, Sievers moved to dismiss the charge on several grounds, including the fact that there was no evidence of a valid suspension under Arkansas law. The court denied the motion and found Sievers guilty of driving on a suspended license. In doing so the court said:\nI don\u2019t think there\u2019s any question as to what the police officers have testified to and the documentation that they have provided to the Court here, that Mr. Sievers or Mr. Lineberry was driving on a suspended Oklahoma license. He got an Arkansas license whenever (sic) he wasn\u2019t entitled to it. Probably it wouldn\u2019t be very hard for him to clear up the Oklahoma business, since it\u2019s so old, but he just never did do it.\nThe court fined Sievers $100 and assessed $62.25 in costs.\nSievers contends on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. The statute making it a misdemeanor to drive on a suspended nonresident license provided at the time:\nAny person whose operator\u2019s or chauffeur\u2019s license or driving privilege as a nonresident has been cancelled, suspended, or revoked as provided in this act and who drives any motor vehicle upon the highways of this state while such license or privilege is cancelled, suspended, or revoked is guilty of a misdemeanor;\nArk. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-16-303(a)(l) (1987). (Emphasis ours.) The term \u201csuspend\u201d as used in this statute means \u201cto temporarily withdraw, by formal action, a driver\u2019s license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle on public highways, which shall be for a period specifically designated by the suspending authority.\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-16-206(a) (1987). Suspensions in Arkansas may not exceed a period of one year. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-16-912 (1987).\nA suspension that continues for nine or ten years is not temporary under anyone\u2019s definition and certainly exceeds the one-year limitation set out under \u00a7 27-16-912. The statute under which Sievers was cited requires that the suspension in the foreign state be in accordance with Arkansas law. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-16-303(a)(1) (1987). The prolonged suspension manifestly failed that test. The circuit court believed that it was Sievers\u2019s obligation to clear up his record in Oklahoma. However, the lengthy passage of time might also have led Sievers to believe that either his suspension in Oklahoma had expired or his Oklahoma license had expired. Certainly, the Oklahoma records speak in terms of some expiration date.\nSuspensions in one state have the effect of precluding a driver from obtaining a license in other states. That is what happens in Arkansas, and recognition of foreign state suspensions is appropriate so long as those suspensions are effective for a fixed period of time. In Arkansas the suspension period may not exceed one year. Foreign state suspensions are not appropriate, though, when they exist for indefinite periods without explanation or reason, and that is the situation in the case before us. We consider it to be the foreign state\u2019s obligation to fix time periods for suspensions and expiration dates. Without any action to reinstate on the part of Sievers, at some point during the ten-year period the Oklahoma suspension should have terminated and the license should have expired or been revoked. That did not happen. Accordingly, we will not affirm a misdemeanor conviction based on an Oklahoma suspension that appears to have no end or rationale to it.\nReversed and dismissed.\nDudley, Newbern, and Glaze, JJ., dissent.\nThe section was amended by Act 445 of 1993, which became effective January 1, 1994. The amendment changed \u201coperator\u2019s or chauffeur\u2019s license\u201d to \u201cdriver\u2019s license.\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert L. Brown, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice,\ndissenting. In dismissing this case, the majority court accepts, wholesale, appellant\u2019s version of the facts and his misstatements of the law. While this case must be reversed on the jury issue, the court is clearly wrong on the facts and law when dismissing it.\nAppellant was convicted of violating Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-16-303(a)(l) (Repl. 1994), which provides that \u201cany person whose driving privilege as a nonresident has been suspended as provided in this act and who drives any motor vehicle upon the highways of this state while such privilege is suspended is guilty of a misdemeanor.\u201d The issue in this appeal is whether the record shows that, when appellant was stopped and charged under \u00a7 27-16-303(a)(l), he was driving on Arkansas highways while he had a suspended nonresident driver\u2019s license. The answer is yes.\nOn November 7, 1993, the officer stopped the appellant on Interstate Highway 540 in Ft. Smith. Appellant\u2019s vehicle was a red and white Corvette bearing Oklahoma tags. The officer checked appellant\u2019s license and found his Oklahoma driver\u2019s license had been suspended. Based on these facts, the officer properly charged appellant with violating \u00a7 27-16-303(a)(l). At trial, the officer identified an Oklahoma Department of Public Safety document dated November 15, 1993, reflecting appellant\u2019s \u201ccurrent license status\u201d \u2014 driver improvement suspension. Under Oklahoma law, the Public Safety Department may temporarily suspend a driver\u2019s license, but the suspension cannot exceed one year. Okla. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 1-173(1988) and \u00a7 6-206 (1988); see also Okla. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 6-208 (1988). In sum, the facts and law clearly support the trial court\u2019s decision that appellant was in violation of \u00a7 27-16-303(a)(l).\nThe majority opinion tracts and is misled by appellant\u2019s argument and discussion, bearing on appellant\u2019s earlier Oklahoma driver\u2019s license suspensions in 1983 and 1984. These older suspensions are mere red herrings. The opinion also follows appellant\u2019s legal argument which erroneously suggests Oklahoma\u2019s law is different from Arkansas's, which provides only for temporary suspended licenses not to exceed one year. As discussed above, Oklahoma law is the same.\nThis court\u2019s duty on review is to view the facts in the appellee\u2019s favor and determine if the evidence supports the trial court\u2019s holding. The record clearly does. The case should be remanded for a new trial.\nDudley and Newbern, JJ., join this dissent.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sam Sexton. Ill, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: DavidR. Raupp, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Bruce Lee SIEVERS v. CITY OF FORT SMITH\n94-958\n894 S.W.2d 940\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 27, 1995\nSam Sexton. Ill, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: DavidR. Raupp, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0136-01",
  "first_page_order": 160,
  "last_page_order": 166
}