Driving After Suspension But Before Reinstatement

There is a big difference between driving under an expired license and driving under a suspended license. Driving under an expired license is a minor misdemeanor under state law, and even where it isn’t (some local ordinances might be tougher), most prosecutors will not ask for jail time if you get current before you plead guilty.

But if you get stopped for driving while under suspension, things are a lot worse. That is a first degree misdemeanor under state law and under most local codes. You will get days in jail for this if you don’t get a very lenient judge.

But while you may have been charged for driving on a suspended license, you need to look closely at your factual situation before you plead guilty. The case below out of Ohio’s Twelfth District Court of Appeals shows why.

In the case of State v. Gorham, Mr. Gorham was under a suspension from April 16, 2004 to July 15, 2004. This was a class E administrative suspension for failure to show proof of financial responsibility in accordance with the provision of R.C. 4509.101. A class E suspension lasts for three months. R.C. 4510.02(A)(5).

In order to have his license reinstated, appellant was required to pay a reinstatement fee and continuously maintain proof of financial responsibility. R.C. 4509.101(A)(5). With respect to the requirement of continuously maintaining financial responsibility, R.C. 4509.45(A) states that a driver may comply in one of several methods, including a bond. Gorham had obtained such a bond.

Under R.C. 4509.45(B), a person must maintain such proof for three years following the imposition of a class E suspension. Mr. Gorham’s driving record reflected that, in order to be in compliance with the statutory requirements of 4509.45(B), the Financial Responsibility Act proof would be required from April 16, 2004 to April 16, 2007.

Mr. Gorham was in compliance with this requirement. His driving record also reflected that he had failed to reinstate his license following the suspension because he had not paid the reinstatement fee.

Mr. Gorham got into a traffic accident after his suspension, but before he reinstated his license. The State of Ohio charged him with driving under a suspended license. Gorham argued that at the time he was driving, his suspension was over. Thus he was driving on an expired license.

The trial court determined as a matter of law that, upon the expiration of the suspension imposed, Gorham’s license remained suspended and would so remain until he met the requirements for reinstatement. But the Twelfth District Court of Appeals held that this was not the law in the state of Ohio.

The Court of Appeals reasoned as follows:

“Maintaining proof of financial responsibility and paying the reinstatement fee were conditions precedent to the restoration of appellant’s license, not conditions precedent to the termination of the suspension.”

The Twelfth District Court then cited to the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Uskert, 85 Ohio St. 3d. 593 at 596 (finding that, in the context of an administrative suspension for driving while intoxicated, “proof of responsibility and payment of the reinstatement fee * * * are * * * conditions precedent to the return of the license by the registrar”).

The Twelfth District Court then went on to hold and reason as follows:

“The suspension terminates automatically. We find that the testimony regarding interpretation of the driving record was inaccurate or ambiguous, and therefore not credible. As such, the trial court’s determination that appellant was driving under suspension is clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence.”

The case on this is State v. Gorham, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 5312 (November 13, 2007) Butler Co. App. No. CA2006-08-195, unreported.