Mackey v. Montrym (1978)
- Docket
- 77-69
- Decided
- 1978-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit a state agency to suspend a driver’s license based only on his refusal to take a breathalyzer test? Conclusion: Yes. Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the lower court erred in finding that the Massachusetts statute deprived Montrym of his Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process. In the Court’s view, Massachusetts’ interest in highway safety and administrative efficiency outweighed Montrym’s interest in his driver’s license. Furthermore, the possibility for a prompt, post-suspension hearing before the Registrar minimized the risk of erroneous deprivation. Justice Potter Stewart wrote a dissent in which he characterized the statute as inducing drivers to submit to a breath analysis test, which in turn provided the police with credible evidence of drunk driving. He argued that the interest in preventing drunk driving did not trump an individual’s right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard prior to the suspension of his driver’s license. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Justice Thurgood Marshall, and Justice John Paul Stevens joined in the dissent.