Santoscoy v. DMV

An agency did not fail to give a license applicant notice for the reason his license was suspended where the applicant failed to raise the notice issue until he brought it up his reply brief.

Santoscoy sought review of a Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicles (DMV) order suspending his driving privileges for knowingly providing false information when he applied for an Oregon driver license. The DMV found this at least partially on the basis that Santoscoy had knowingly omitted the fact that he had applied for a license in 1997 on a 2013 license application. An administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the DMV’s decision. Santoscoy contended on appeal that the ALJ erred when deciding that Santoscoy had knowingly omitted the 1997 application from the 2013 application. In his reply brief, Santoscoy added that the DMV provided him with inadequate notice of the reason for his license suspension. The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the DMV did not fail to timely notify Santoscoy of the reason of his license suspension, and that by waiting to address the notice issue in his reply brief, the DMV did not have adequate opportunity to respond. Affirmed.