Lance Gerald Milliman, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-0563

Lance Gerald Milliman, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.

Filed January 24, 2022
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Meeker County District Court
File No. 47-CV-20-877

Lance Milliman, Eden Valley, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Keith Ellison, Attorney Genera l, Leah Hedman, Assistant A ttorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Slieter, Pr esiding Judge; Gaïtas, Judge; and Kirk,
Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SLIETER, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s de termination that he failed to meet the
requirements to have his driver’s license reinstated. Because appellant has failed to provide

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Ap peals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
proof of full payment of the reinstatemen t fee or completion of a required written
examination to qualify for a reinstated driver’s license, we affirm.
FACTS
Following appellant Lance Gerald Millim an’s out-of-state conviction for refusing
to submit to an alcohol test in violation of Missouri law in 2011, respondent Minnesota
Commissioner of Public Safety (the commissioner) revoked Milliman’s Minnesota driver’s
license, including his commercial driver’s license (CDL). The co mmissioner notified
Milliman on March 16, 2011 that, to qualify fo r reinstatement of his driver’s license, he
must (1) “pass the DWI/drug written test,” (2) “pay [the] $680 reinstatement fee,” and
(3) “make [an] application for new license.” Two days later the commissioner notified him
that, for reinstatement of his CDL, Milliman was required to pay a $20 reinstatement fee.
Milliman petitioned the district court for re instatement in 2011. The district court
denied reinstatement, concluding the comm issioner’s decision to revoke his driver’s
license was not fraudulent, arbitrary, unrea sonable, or outside the commissioner’s
jurisdiction. Milliman also unsuccessfully petitioned the district court for reinstatement in
2014 and 2018.
In February 2020, Milliman submitted a Minne sota driver’s license application to
the commissioner with a $20 money order. The commissioner returned the application and
money order, indicating it could not process his application because the reinstatement fee
is $680. Milliman petitioned the district court for reinstatement of his license in October
2020, and the district court denied his petition. Milliman appeals.

3
DECISION
Minnesota and Missouri are parties to th e Driver License Compact. Minn. Stat.
§ 171.50 (2020); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.600 (2016 ). The compact requires party states to
“report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within its jurisdiction
to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee.” Minn. Stat. § 171.50, art. III.
“[T]he home state shall give such effect to the conduct as provided by the laws of the home
state.” Id., art. IV(b).
Minnesota law requires the commissioner to “revoke the license of a driver upon
receiving a record of the driver ’s conviction of . . . an offense in another state that, if
committed in this state, would be grounds for revoking the license.” Minn. Stat. § 171.17
(2020). Refusing to submit to an alcohol test in Minnesota is grounds for license
revocation. Minn. Stat. § 169A.52 (2020). Before reinstatement, a person whose driver’s
license has been revok ed must, as condition s for reinstatement, pass an examination
required by the commissioner and pay reinstatement fees. Minn. Stat. § 171.29 (2020).
A person whose license has been revoked or disqualified may file a petition for the
district court “to take testimony and examine into the facts of the case to determine whether
the petitioner is entitled to a licen se or is subject to revocation, suspension, cancellation,
disqualification, or refusal of license, and shall render judgment accordingly.” Minn. Stat.
§ 171.19 (2020).
“We review de novo the district court’s application of the law in proceedings held
pursuant to section 171.19.” Pallas v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 781 N.W.2d 163, 167 (Minn.
App. 2010). “[L]ike the district court, we may reverse the commissioner’s licensure
4
determination if it was fraudulent, arbitrary, unreasonable, or not within its jurisdiction and
powers.” Id. The petitioner bears the burden of proving he or sh e is entitled to
reinstatement. Constans v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety , 835 N.W.2d 518, 523 (Minn. App.
2013). We will “defer to the district court’s credibility determinations and ability to weigh
the evidence. The district court’s fact findings will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly
erroneous.” Id. (quotation and citations omitted).
The district court found th at Milliman had paid “only a portion of the reinstatement
fees required, and ha[d] not provided evid ence of completion of the required DWI/Drug
test.” The record supports the district c ourt’s factual finding be cause Milliman provided
proof of a $20 payment with his license application. Milliman presented no evidence that
he paid the full reinstatement fee or “pass[ed] the DWI/drug written test,” as required by
the commissioner. Therefore, the district court properly found that Milliman did not meet
his burden to prove he is entitled to reinstatement.
Milliman argues that the commissioner acted arbitrarily by not undertaking a safety
investigation to determine whether it is safe to issue him a driver’s license as provided for
in the compact and discussed by our court in Pallas. Milliman also argues that the district
court erred by concluding a safety inves tigation was premature and therefore the
commissioner did not act arbitrarily by failing to do so. The district court properly
concluded that Milliman failed to prove that the commissioner acted arbitrarily.
The compact allows the commissioner to refu se to issue a Minnesota license to an
individual whose out-of-state license has been revoked for more than one year by “any
other party state.” Minn. Stat. § 171.50, art. V(2); Pallas, 781 N.W.2d at 168. The compact
5
states that the commissioner “may refuse to issue a license to any such applicant if, after
investigation, the licensing authority determines that it will not be sa fe to grant to such
person the privilege of driving a motor vehi cle on the public highways.” Minn. Stat.
§ 171.50, art. V(2).
First, this provision of the compact doe s not apply to Milliman ’s driver’s license
application because his license originated in Minnesota. Se cond, even if it applied, the
district court properly concluded a safety investigation was “premature” because Milliman
has not paid the full reinstatement fee or pa ssed the required examina tion, both of which
are required for reinstatement. Therefore, the commissioner was “not required to make a
safety investigation prior to proper application and satisfaction of the other reinstatement
terms.”
Affirmed.