Colorado Department of Revenue v. Kirke (1987)

Colo. Dep't of Revenue v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16, 21 (Colo.1987).

See Gilbert, 230 P.3d at 1222 (the Department has the statutory authority to issue subpoenas at a plaintiffs request, including subpoenas duces te-cum); see also §§ 24-4-105(4)-(5), 42-2-126(8)(d), C.R.S.2011; Colo. Dep't of Revenue v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16, 21-22 (Colo.1987) (a plaintiffs right to request the issuance of subpoenas to support a defense is a significant factor in avoiding a due process violation when a revocation element is established solely by hearsay evidence…

Véanse, además: School Comm. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 423 Mass. 7, 15-16 (1996); Gray v. Adduci, 73 N.Y.2d 741 , 742-743 (1988); Colorado Dep’t Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div. v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16, 21-22 (Colo. 1987).

In Kirke , we overruled our holding in Sims “[t]o the extent that Sims might be interpreted to hold that any administrative determination must be based on some nonhearsay evidence, regardless of the reliability of hearsay evidence that has been admitted.” Kirke, 743 P.2d at 22 (emphasis in original).

“Plain error is obvious and substantial[,] . . . [and] permit[s] an appellate court to correct ‘particularly egregious errors.’” Hagos, ¶ 14 (quoting Wilson v. People, 743 P.2d 16 415, 420 (Colo. 1987)).

Colo. Dep’t of Revenue v. Kirke , 743 P.2d 16, 21 (Colo. 1987).

Colo. Dep’t of Revenue v. Kirke , 743 P.2d 16, 21 (Colo. 1987).

We have previously explained that "probable cause is held to exist where the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to cause a reasonably cautious police officer to believe that an offense has been committed." Colo. Dep't of Rev. v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16, 18 (Colo.1987) (emphasis in original) (quoting People v. Nanes, 174 Colo. 294 , 4836 P.2d 958 , 961 (Colo.1971)).

See § 42-2-126(1)(b), C.R.S. (2018) (one purpose of the license revocation statute is "[tlo guard against the potential for any erroneous deprivation of the driving privilege by providing an opportunity for a full hearing"); Colo. Dep't of Revenue v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16, 21 (Colo.1987) (finding "significant" the fact that the defendant had "the opportunity to confront and cross-examine any of the officers involved" and had the "right to subpoena the initial officer and cross-…

Colo. Dep’t of Revenue v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16, 21-22 (Colo.1987).

Colo. Dep't of Revenue v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16, 20 (Colo.1987).

Colorado Dep’t of Revenue v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16, 20 (Colo.1987) (“License revocation proceedings are civil in nature; the protections afforded criminal defendants do not apply.”); People v. McKnight, 200 Colo. 486, 493 , 617 P.2d 1178, 1183 (1980) (“The administrative proceeding to revoke a driver’s license because of habitual traffic offender status is a civil one.”).

Corp., 782 P.2d 13 (Colo.1989) (hearsay evidence sufficient if reliable and probative, and use not prohibited by statute); Colorado Dep’t of Revenue v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16, 21 (Colo.1987) (hearsay alone sufficient in driver’s license revocation proceeding); Embers of Salisbury, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm’n, 401 Mass. 526 , 517 N.E.2d 830, 832-33 (1988) (hearsay sufficient if reliable *206 and probative); Diehsner v. Schenectady City School Dist., 152 A.D.2d 796 …

See Colo. Dep't of Revenue v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16 , 21 (Colo.1987) (noting that licensee had opportunity to confront and cross-examine "any of the officers involved" and had "right to subpoena initial officer and cross-examine him, but failed to do so"); see also Halter v. Dep't of Revenue, 857 P.2d 535 , 539 (Colo.App.1993) (rejecting argument that licensee's due process rights were violated because he could not cross-examine officer who was not present at revocation hearing…

See Stevenson v. State, 287 Md. 504, 522-23 , 413 A.2d 1340, 1350 (1980) *263 (noting that District of Columbia police officer could rely on fellow officer’s conclusion that two men had just robbed a bank in making a citizen’s arrest in Maryland); see also Colorado Dep’t of Revenue v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16, 19 (Colo.1987) (stating that information relayed to one police officer based on the observations of another police officer may be presumed to be credible and reliable).

However, when necessary to do so in order to ascertain facts affecting the substantial rights of the parties to the proceeding, the person so conducting the hearing may receive and consider evidence not admissible under such rules if such evidence possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent men in the conduct of their affairs. § 24-4-105(7) (emphasis added); see Colo. Dep’t of Revenue v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16, 21 (Colo. 1987) (applying this standard in…

See also Colorado Department of Revenue v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16 (Colo.1987).

See Halter v. Department of Revenue, 857 P.2d 535 (Colo.App.1993); see also Colorado Department of Revenue v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16 (Colo.1987).

See Colorado Department of Revenue v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16 (Colo.1987).

See Colorado Dep't of Rev. v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16, 20 (Colo.1987).