Sworn Report as Sole Basis for DUI License Revocation under Oklahoma’s 2019 §753(A) Amendment

Introduction

Christopher Couch v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety (2025 OK 26) presented the question whether a driver’s license may be lawfully revoked when a chemical test result is invalidated, yet the driver has not refused testing. Christopher Couch had agreed to two breath tests following his arrest for suspicion of DUI; both tests were later deemed invalid due to procedural errors. Despite the absence of valid test results, the Department of Public Safety revoked Couch’s license based on an officer’s sworn report. A split had emerged in the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals: Division III upheld such revocation on “other competent evidence,” while Division IV held revocation improper without valid test results. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve this conflict and clarify the proper interpretation of the implied consent statutes after the 2019 amendment to 47 O.S. §753(A).

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed the district court’s order sustaining the revocation of Couch’s driver’s license. It held that the 2019 amendment to 47 O.S. §753(A) replaced the conjunctive “and” with the disjunctive “or,” creating three distinct statutory paths for revocation:

Refusal-based revocation (Section 753(A));
Test-based revocation (Section 754(B)); and
Sworn report–based revocation (Section 753(A) as amended).

Under the amended Section 753(A), an officer’s sworn report establishing reasonable grounds of impairment alone suffices to sustain revocation, even if a chemical test result is invalidated. The Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals Division III opinion but affirmed the district court’s revocation order.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Trusty v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety (2016 OK 94) – Set pre-2019 statutory prerequisites requiring both a test result or refusal and a sworn report for revocation.
Bryant v. Comm’r of Dep’t of Pub. Safety (1996 OK 134) – Interpreted the prior version of Sections 753 and 754.
Gray v. State ex rel. Serv. Okla. (COCA Div. IV, Mar. 28, 2024) – Held revocation invalid when test results are excluded.
Cole v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety (2020 OK 67) and Hollis v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety (2008 OK 31) – Defined standards of review for implied consent revocations.
Price v. Reed (1986 OK 43) – Addressed sworn report–based revocation procedures.

Legal Reasoning

Applying de novo review to statutory interpretation, the Court examined Title 47 O.S. §§ 753–757. It concluded:

The 2019 amendment to § 753(A) substituted “or” for “and,” allowing revocation based solely on an officer’s sworn report of reasonable grounds to believe the driver was impaired.
Section 754(B) continues to govern test-based revocation, requiring both a valid test result and a sworn report.
Section 757 permits— but does not require—courts to consider additional competent evidence (e.g., sobriety observations, field sobriety tests), without overriding fundamental statutory prerequisites.

The Court emphasized legislative intent: the amendment was substantive and expanded the State’s enforcement tools. The judiciary’s role is to enforce the statute as written, ensuring due process by scrutinizing sworn reports and other evidence.

Impact on Future Cases

This decision resolves the split among the Court of Civil Appeals divisions and affirms that a valid chemical test result is not a prerequisite for license revocation if the officer’s sworn report establishes reasonable grounds. Going forward:

Law enforcement may rely more confidently on thoroughly documented sworn reports to sustain revocations.
Defense strategies will focus on challenging the sufficiency or credibility of the officer’s sworn report and any ancillary evidence.
Court practitioners must be aware of the three distinct pathways for revocation—refusal-based, test-based, and sworn report–based—and the evidentiary requirements for each.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Implied Consent Laws: Drivers in Oklahoma impliedly consent to chemical testing; refusal, test results, or an officer’s sworn report can trigger license revocation.
Sworn Report–Based Revocation: A procedure allowing revocation based solely on an officer’s written, under-oath statement of reasonable grounds for impairment.
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests: HGN, Walk-and-Turn, and One-Leg Stand tests provide observable clues of intoxication.
De Novo Review: Appellate courts independently interpret questions of law, without deference to trial court rulings.

Conclusion

Christopher Couch v. State of Oklahoma firmly establishes that under the 2019 amendment to 47 O.S. §753(A), an officer’s sworn report of reasonable grounds to believe a driver is impaired is an independent basis for license revocation—even when chemical test results are invalidated. This ruling aligns with legislative policy prioritizing public safety, clarifies conflicting appellate authority, and underscores the importance of detailed, reliable sworn testimony in implied consent proceedings. As a result, Oklahoma’s implied consent framework now comprises three distinct revocation paths, and practitioners must tailor their approach to the specific statutory pathway at issue.