Moore v. Colorado Department of Revenue.
2026 COA 2. No. 24CA1735. Drivers’ Licenses—License Revocation Based on Administrative Determination—Alcohol and Drug Offenses—Expressed Consent for Taking Blood, Breath, Urine, or Saliva—Refusal.
January 15, 2026
Deputy Lantis responded to a call that Moore was about to drive while intoxicated. He reached Moore as she was backing out of her parking spot and close to hitting another vehicle. Moore told Lantis that she had consumed two glasses of wine. Lantis reported that Moore displayed multiple signs of intoxication. Moore refused Lantis’s request to perform roadside maneuvers, and she had difficulty finding her driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance, which she never produced. Lantis placed Moore in custody and transferred custody to Officer Kinney, who put her in the back seat of his patrol car. According to Kinney, Moore refused chemical tests several times, even after he advised her that administrative sanctions could be placed on her license. He then completed an “Express Consent Affidavit and Notice of Revocation” and gave it to Moore. Moore challenged the revocation administratively, asserting that under Jansma v. Colorado Department of Revenue, 2023 COA 59, there was insufficient evidence that she was advised of the express consent statute and that she refused to take a chemical test. No one testified at the hearing. The only evidence presented was Moore’s driving record, the Express Consent Affidavit and Notice of Revocation, and Kinney’s “Affidavit in Support of Warrantless Arrest” and report. The hearing officer upheld the revocation. Moore then petitioned for review in district court. The court reversed, concluding that under Jansma, the evidence didn’t show the circumstances supporting refusal.
As an initial matter on appeal, the clerk of court issued an order to show cause why the appeal shouldn’t be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order. The order to show cause was based on the fact that the district court not only reversed the hearing officer’s order but also remanded the case for further proceedings. The court of appeals concluded that it had jurisdiction over this appeal. The district court’s order resolved Moore’s petition on the merits, ruling in her favor on the only issue presented for review. Though the district court remanded the case, nothing remained for the Department of Revenue’s Division of Motor Vehicles to do other than reinstate Moore’s license as directed by the district court. Therefore, the remand would not lead to further proceedings on the merits of the case.
On the merits, the evidence showed that Kinney and Moore had a conversation during which Moore stated three times that she would not take a chemical test. Distinguishing Jansma, the court held that the Division of Motor Vehicles sufficiently proved that Moore refused chemical testing, and the driver’s license revocation was justified under the express consent statute.
The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for reinstatement of the revocation order.