FEBRUARY 2026 | 19 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. provide exhibits until moments before the trial begins. Despite being the defendant in the action, the burden of proof is solely with SOK, and they start the trial by calling witnesses or introducing evidence. Once SOK rests, the licensee is allowed to present witnesses or evidence, and the court generally renders its opinion at the conclusion on the record. If the court finds that SOK did not meet its burden, the court will sustain the licensee’s petition and set aside the revocation. If the court finds that SOK met its burden, the court generally overrules the petition and sustains the revocation. The revocation period is generally 180 days for a first offense, one year for a second offense and two years for a third offense within 10 years.19 Additionally, “the revocation of the driving privilege of any person under Section 6-205, 6-205.1, 753, or 754 of this title shall not run concurrently with any other revocation of driving privilege under Section 6-205, 6-205.1, 753, or 754 of this title resulting from a different incident.”20 ATTORNEY FEES If SOK takes action against a licensee that does not serve a reasonable basis or is frivolous, SOK could be on the hook for attorney fees and costs.21 For example, in Johnson v. State, ex. rel. DPS, DPS erroneously issued a driver’s license revocation notice after the plaintiff’s driver’s license revocation had already been set aside.22 Mr. Johnson filed a driver’s license appeal, and DPS restored his driving privileges upon receipt of the appeal.23 The trial court found that there was no reasonable basis for this revocation and awarded Mr. Johnson his attorney fees and costs, including expert witness fees, incurred in the action. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals found that the trial court properly held that DPS had no reasonable basis for suspending the plaintiff’s driver’s license and affirmed the trial court’s award.24 The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals based its decision in Johnson on a case where DPS admitted it lacked authority to suspend an out-of-state driver’s license.25 However, DPS revoked Mr. Miller’s driving privileges even after case law directed that his privileges be restored.26 The trial court, and later the appellate court, determined that DPS’s actions were unreasonable and awarded Mr. Miller his attorney fees and costs.27 In 2022, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that DPS acted unreasonably when it suspended the plaintiff’s driving privileges based on pending traffic violations that had not become convictions.28 In Currington, an abstract was sent to DPS noting three convictions for traffic violations. DPS issued a letter and notice of suspension based on these convictions.29 However, this abstract was incorrect, and they were pending matters rather than convictions.30 Mr. Currington and his attorneys attempted to contact DPS and rectify the situation but were unsuccessful. Immediately before the suspension took effect, Mr. Currington filed his appeal. The trial court determined that the suspension by DPS was unreasonable, and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.31 In January 2025, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court and found that the actions by SOK in revoking a driver’s license without proper notice lacked a reasonable basis and were subject to attorney fees and costs.32 On Dec. 17, 2022, Mr. White was arrested for suspicion of DUI, and a blood draw was performed.33 The notice provided to Mr. White at the time of his arrest advised that he would receive a notice informing him of the commencement of a revocation.34 Mr. White heard nothing for over a year, and on Jan. 3,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==