A dispute between two state agencies has resulted in the dismissal of hundreds of cases involving accused drunken drivers who had their licenses automatically suspended.

From Jan. 1 through Wednesday, S.C. Administrative Law Court hearing officers dismissed 421 cases statewide — nearly 70 percent of the 602 cases they heard — making it easier for those drivers to get back behind the wheel.

And while the dismissal rate for all of 2005 also was high — 60 percent — the difference this year is that in the vast majority of the dismissed cases, the investigating police officers didn’t show up for the administrative hearings because they weren’t notified.

Police officers haven’t been notified because the court and the state Department of Motor Vehicles can’t agree who has that responsibility. A state law that went into effect Jan. 1 transferred oversight of the hearing officers from the department to the court.

Marvin Kittrell, the court’s chief judge, said Thursday that his staff would start notifying police officers immediately.

Meanwhile, Kittrell said he is pushing proposed legislation, scheduled for debate Tuesday in the S.C. House, that would more clearly give his office that responsibility.

“It’s a mess,” he said. “I really think it’s (the motor vehicles department’s) responsibility.”

Under state law, licenses are suspended automatically for 90 days for suspected drunken drivers who refuse to take a blood-alcohol test, and 30 days for those whose blood-alcohol level is at least .15 percent. A blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or higher is illegal.

Drivers can appeal their suspensions to one of the state’s six Administrative Law Court hearing officers. If their administrative cases are dismissed, drivers can get their licenses back pending the outcome of their criminal cases.

Kittrell, who oversees the hearing officers, said he understands the public safety ramifications of dismissing cases, but “we cannot be more than a court.”

“We have to apply the law equally and fairly to all parties when they walk in the door.”

PURSUING APPEALS

The Department of Motor Vehicles has not reinstated licenses in about 200 of the 421 dismissed cases while it files appeals with Kittrell’s court, department officials said last week. Most of the affected drivers can apply for temporary licenses pending the department’s appeals, they said.

“We have additional cases that are being reviewed, and we will probably file more (appeals),” said department spokeswoman Beth Parks.

The department contends that when its hearing officers and staff were transferred to the court under the new law, “all the functions and duties went with it,” Parks said.

“We are working these things through with the ALC,” said Lotte Devlin, the department’s policy and planning administrator. “There’s just a difference in interpretation going on.”

Col. Russell Roark, head of the Highway Patrol, said last week his division had been working with the DMV to develop a “cleaner” notification process involving sending hearing notices to officers by e-mail instead of by fax. The e-mails would be forwarded via a central account at the Highway Patrol.

“We’re relying on the Department of Motor Vehicles to notify us,” he said. “If the DMV notifies us of a hearing, we will try, to the best of our ability, to make sure our trooper is at the hearing.”

Roark didn’t know if any of the 421 dismissed cases involved troopers.

LEGISLATIVE FIX

A sponsor of a House bill aimed at fixing the problem blames the motor vehicles department.

“They’re deliberately picking a fight,” Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, said last week. “Had there not been a problem to begin with, the administrative hearing officers would still be with them.”

Before the hearing officers were transferred out of DMV, Delleney said, some department managers treated the officers “like stepchildren.” Some were even locked out of their offices, he said.

Parks said department director Marcia Adams — who was unavailable for comment last week — proposed in 2004 moving the hearing officers out of the department because “it really wasn’t part of our mission.”

Delleney said he supported the transfer to the Administrative Law Court so drivers could have a “fair and impartial hearing.”

But Kittrell said he didn’t want the hearing officers under his jurisdiction. “I felt I had enough on my plate at that time,” he said.

Delleney said he will push to get the legislation this week to the Senate, which has a similar bill pending in a subcommittee.

Under both bills, the arresting police officers or officers operating breathalyzer machines would be designated as parties in Administrative Law Court hearings. Kittrell said current law requires his court to notify only parties. Police officers are now considered witnesses for the department, not parties.

NO-SHOWS

Jami Goldman, executive director of the state chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said last week she was unaware of the problem until contacted by The State.

“The officers I’ve met really want to get drunk drivers off the road,” she said. “I would have to believe if they had to be (at the hearings), they would be there. It would be silly to pull somebody over and then go away.”

Last year, however, administrative hearing officers, while part of the Department of Motor Vehicles, dismissed 1,818, or nearly 60 percent, of the 3,118 cases they heard because police officers didn’t appear, Administrative Law Court records show.

Failure to notify police officers about the hearings wasn’t the problem then, court and department officials said. But they could not provide reasons for those dismissals.

Robert Harley Jr., the state’s chief hearing officer, estimated that in about a third of his dismissed cases, the arresting officer didn’t show up as part of a deal in which the driver agreed to quickly plead guilty to the criminal charge.

Officers also might skip administrative hearings because it’s their scheduled day off, he said, or they have conflicts with other cases, or they don’t believe their case is strong.

Reach Brundrett at (803) 771-8484.