Lee v. Gore: Averment of Willful Refusal Necessary before DMV Can Revoke

The North Carolina Supreme Court decided Lee v. Gore last Friday, affirming the court of appeals and holding that DMV lacked authority to revoke the petitioner’s driving privileges pursuant to G.S. 20-16.2 based upon an affidavit that failed to allege that he willfully refused to submit to a chemical analysis.  I’ve written about this case before, so I’ll skip over the facts (discussed here) and the court of appeals’ opinion upon rehearing (discussed here). The supreme court characterized its disposition of the case as “turn[ing] on the limited authority of the DMV,” an agency that “possesses only those powers expressly granted to it by our legislature or those which exist by necessary implication in a statutory grant of authority.” Slip op. at 6-7. The court considered G.S. 20-16.2, the statute conferring upon DMV the authority to revoke a person’s license for willfully refusing a chemical analysis, “clear and unambiguous,” thereby leaving no room for judicial construction or deference to the agency’s interpretation of its provisions. Slip op. at 5. The court explained that G.S. 20-16.2 enables DMV to act when a driver charged with an implied-consent offense refuses to submit to a chemical analysis.  When such a refusal occurs, G.S. 20-16.2(c1) requires the law enforcement officer and chemical analyst to execute an affidavit averring several facts, among them that the person “willfully refused to submit to a chemical analysis.” The officer then must immediately mail the affidavit to DMV.  When DMV receives a “properly executed affidavit” pursuant to G.S. 20-16.2(c1), it [...]