Fowler v. Motor Vehicle Administration

HARRELL, J. We consider here whether, during a driver license suspension hearing conducted under § 16-205.1 of the Transporta ³³⁷ tion Article, Maryland Code (1977, 2002 RepLVol.), 1 an administrative law judge (“AL J”), faced with conflicting evidence in the form of an arresting police officer’s written certification in a DR-15 Advice of Rights form and testimony from the arrested driver, may deny the driver’s motion to subpoena the officer where the driver disputes that he was fully advised by the officer of the consequence for refusing to take a chemical breath test. 2 I. On 12 June 2004, Zachary Shawn Fowler, Petitioner, was stopped by a Howard County police officer for making an unsafe lane change. The arresting officer, noticing a strong odor of alcohol, asked Fowler to perform certain field sobriety tests. Fowler performed poorly on these tests. The officer then asked Fowler to submit to a preliminary breath test (“PBT”). 3 Fowler refused.

Based on his performance on the field sobriety tests, the officer arrested Fowler for drunk driving and transported him to the police station. At the police station, the officer provided Fowler with a DR-15 Advice of Rights form. The use of this form is intended, first, to advise the arrested driver of the consequences of refusing or failing a chemical breath test and, second, to certify that the officer complied with the statute’s advice of rights requirement. 4 The form includes the follow ³³⁸ ing language to ensure the driver’s receipt of the required advice of rights: Read Before Signing: I, the undersigned driver, acknowledge that I have been read or I have read the above stated Advice of Rights as certified by the police officer. I understand that this requested test is in addition to any preliminary tests that were taken.

Both Fowler and the arresting officer signed the DR-15 Advice of Rights form. The officer completed also a DR-15A form, which contained his sworn statement that he had reasonable grounds to stop Fowler and that Fowler refused a chemical breath test at the station after being fully advised of the applicable sanctions, as provided in the DR-15 Advice of Rights form. Separate from the criminal charges for drunk driving, Fowler was charged also with refusing to take a chemical alcohol concentration breath test in violation of § 16-205.1. Section 16-205.1 imposes a mandatory license suspension upon an individual, suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, who either refuses to take a chemical breath test or submits to a test and registers a blood alcohol concentration result in excess of 0.08. 5 In accordance with § 16 — 205.1(f)(1), Fowler ³³⁹ requested a hearing before the Motor Vehicle Administration (“MVA”) to contest his license suspension.

Fowler filed also a motion requesting a subpoena for the arresting officer, in compliance with the Code of Maryland Regulations (“CO-MAR”) 11.11.03.07, to question the officer in an effort to support his claim that he was not advised fully of the administrative sanctions for refusing to take an alcohol concentration chemical breath test. The subpoena request proffered that the officer would testify “that the officer did not fully advise [Fowler] of the administrative sanctions that shall be imposed for submitting to or refusing a test” and “that legally improper and misleading advice was given.” Fowler deferred a decision on his subpoena request to the ALJ conducting his suspension hearing. See COMAR 11.11.03.07D. At his hearing before the ALJ, Fowler disputed that he was fully advised of his rights.

Specifically, he contended that while the officer advised him that his license would be suspended for 120 days if he refused to take a breath test, the officer did so only at the scene of the arrest, but not at the police station. Moreover, Fowler argued that when he was provided the DR-15 Advice of Rights form at the station the officer informed him that his license was being suspended because Fowler already had refused to take the test, which Fowler believed referred to the PBT. 6 Fowler stated that he ³⁴⁰ was never offered a second test, the chemical breath test, at the station. He believed that by signing the DR-15 form he was merely acknowledging his refusal of the PBT requested by the officer on the street and, therefore, he did not knowingly refuse a chemical breath test at the station. While Fowler conceded that he was given the DR-15 form to read and sign, he stated that he merely “skimmed over it” before signing it.

He testified as well that the officer did not read it to him. Fowler asserted that if the arresting officer were subpoenaed, the officer would testify consistently with Fowler’s version. 7 After hearing Fowler’s proffer of what the arresting officer would testify to, the ALJ denied Fowler’s subpoena request. In his oral ruling, the ALJ stated: First off, I’m going to find that the licensee was fully advised. I conclude primarily from the certification of the officer that he was fully advised and it’s bolstered by the testimony of the licensee wh[o] was told to read it and he skimmed over it.

And I don’t see the need to call the officer to cross examine him. There’s no indication the PBT was relied on or not relied on in this case. * * * My finding is he was fully advised, and the other finding is I don’t see the need to call the officer to clarify anything.... The ALJ suspended Fowler’s license for 120 days, but modified the sentence to only five days of suspension on the condition that he participate in the Ignition Interlock Program for one year. ³⁴¹ Fowler sought judicial review of the ALJ’s decision by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, which affirmed relying upon this Court’s decision in Motor Vehicle Administration v. Karwacki, 340 Md. 271 , 666 A.2d 511 (1995). The Circuit Court concluded that the ALJ properly exercised his discretion by resolving the conflicting evidence of Fowler’s testimony and the officer’s certification on the DR-15 Advice of Rights form.

Noting that Fowler had an opportunity to read the DR-15 form, the court found there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision that Fowler was informed of his rights. Specifically, the Circuit Court emphasized that under Karwacki , “[t]he ALJ was under no obligation to believe Petitioner over the officer’s sworn statement.” Thus, because the ALJ found the police officer’s sworn statement credible, the Circuit Court determined that the ALJ properly rejected Fowler’s request to subpoena the arresting officer. Fowler filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with this Court. We granted Fowler’s petition to consider whether the ALJ, faced with the officer’s certification on the DR-15 Advice of Rights form and Fowler’s conflicting testimony, properly denied Fowler’s request to subpoena the arresting officer. 8 Fowler v. MVA 390 Md. 500 , 889 A.2d 418 (2006).

II

Under § 10-222(h)(3) of the State Government Article, Maryland Code (1984, 2004 RepLVol.), a reviewing court may reverse or modify an administrative decision of a state agency if it: (i) is unconstitutional; (ii) exceeds the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the final decision maker; (iii) results from an unlawful procedure; (iv) is affected by any other error of Whether an ALJ in a driver license suspension hearing must apply the rule of Forman v. MVA, [ 332 Md. 201 , 630 A.2d 753 (1993),] rather than MVA v. Karwacki, [ 340 Md. 271 , 666 A.2d 511 (1995),] where there is a dispute on a genuine issue of fact and the licensee has properly requested a subpoena for the witness? ³⁴² law; (v) is unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence in light of the entire record as submitted; or (vi) is arbitrary or capricious. A final administrative decision or order shall contain “separate statements of: (i) the findings of fact; (ii) the conclusions of law; and (iii) the order.” Maryland Code (1984, 2004 Repl. Vol.), State Government Article, § 10 — 221(b)(1). As this Court has noted, for a reviewing court to perform properly its examination function, an administrative decision must contain factual findings on all the material issues of a case and a clear, explicit statement of the agency’s rationale.

Harford County v. Earl E. Preston, Jr., Inc., 322 Md. 493, 505 , 588 A.2d 772, 778 (1991). A fully explained administrative decision also fulfills another purpose; it recognizes the “fundamental right of a party to a proceeding before an administrative agency to be apprised of the facts relied upon by the agency in reaching its decision....” Id. When evaluating an administrative agency’s decision, 9 a reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that exercised properly by the agency, especially where the expertise of the agency is employed in reaching its decision. See Board of Physician v. Banks, 354 Md. 59, 68 , 729 A.2d 376, 381 (1999). “It is well-settled in this State that it is the function of an administrative agency to make factual findings and to draw inferences from the facts found.” Karwacki, 340 Md. at 280 , 666 A.2d at 515 .

As such, a court’s role in reviewing an agency’s factual determinations is particularly narrow, limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the agency’s decision. See Banks, 354 Md. at 67-68 , 729 A.2d at 380 ; United Parcel v. People’s Counsel, 336 Md. 569, 576 , 650 A.2d 226, 230 (1994). In defining substantial evidence, we have stated that it requires “relevant evidence [that a] reasonable mind might ³⁴³ accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Caucus v. Maryland Securities, 320 Md. 313, 324 , 577 A.2d 783, 788 (1990); see also Liberty Nursing v. Department of Health and, Mental Hygiene, 330 Md. 433, 443 , 624 A.2d 941, 946 (1993) (stating that “if reasoning minds could reasonably reach the conclusion reached by the agency from the facts in the record, then it is based upon substantial evidence, and the court has no power to reject that conclusion”). An agency decision is presumed to be valid on its face.

Liberty Nursing, 330 Md. at 443 , 624 A.2d at 946 . Thus, where the dispute concerns a factual matter and substantial evidence supports an agency or administrative decision, we affirm. Id. A reviewing court is not under similar restraint when evaluating administrative decisions premised on erroneous conclusions of law.

See id (clarifying that when an issue before an agency is one of law, no deference is appropriate and the scope of review is much broader than when reviewing factual determinations); People’s Counsel v. Maryland Marine, 316 Md. 491, 497 , 560 A.2d 32, 34-35 (1989). Despite this broader scope of review, we have noted that “with regard to some legal issues, a degree of deference should often be accorded the position of the administrative agency.” MVA v. Lytle, 374 Md. 37, 57 , 821 A.2d 62, 73 (2003) (quoting Banks, 354 Md. at 69 , 729 A.2d at 381 ). Thus, a reviewing court may give considerable weight to the agency’s interpretation of its own statutes. Id.

III

Section 16-205.1 imposes mandatory license suspension for an individual, suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, who either refuses to take a chemical breath test or submits to a test and registers a result in excess of the legal maximum of 0.08 alcohol concentration. 10 To encourage driv ³⁴⁴ ers to submit to a chemical breath test, the statute imposes harsher sanctions for refusing to submit to the test than for failing the test. See § 16 — 205.1(b)(l)(i); Forman v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 332 Md. 201, 206 , 630 A.2d 753, 756 (1993) (stating that the strict penalty for refusing to take a breath test “is designed to encourage licensees to take, rather than to refuse” alcohol concentration breath tests). The statute, however, specifically requires officers to advise drivers of the sanctions to ensure that arrested drivers may make fully informed decisions. See § 16-205.1(b)(l) and (2).

A driver whose license has been suspended under § 16-205.1 may request a hearing before the MVA on certain limited issues, including whether the driver was “fully advised.” 11 See § 16-205.1(f)(1). In Forman v. Motor Vehicle Administration, supra, 332 Md. at 222 , 630 A.2d at 764 , this Court examined the options an ALJ considers when a driver, during a § 16-205.1 hearing, files a motion for a subpoena request. Forman, charged with a violation of § 16-205.1 for refusing a chemical breath test, requested both an administrative hearing to contest her suspension and a subpoena to compel the arresting officer to testify at her hearing. Forman, 332 Md. at 208 , 630 A.2d at 757 .

The decision of the subpoena request was deferred to the ALJ at the hearing. Forman, 332 Md. at 209 , 630 A.2d at 757 . During the hearing, Forman asserted that, although she had read and signed the DR-15 Advice of Rights form, she was confused and misled by the officer’s statements which suggested that suspension may not be mandatory. Forman, 332 Md. at 208-11 , 630 A.2d at 758-59 .

She contended also that she was induced by the officer to refuse the test, an action contrary to the language of the statute and the intent of ³⁴⁵ the Legislature. Id. Forman stated that the officer promised to return her to a friend’s home if she refused the test, but told her he would take her to the police station if she took and failed the test. Forman, 332 Md. at 210 , 630 A.2d at 758 .

The ALJ denied Forman’s motion for a subpoena request. Forman, 332 Md. at 211 , 630 A.2d at 759 . Finding that the ALJ failed to resolve the critical issue raised by Forman concerning her advice of rights, we reversed the Circuit Court’s judgment affirming the ALJ’s decision denying the subpoena request. Forman, 332 Md. at 222 , 630 A.2d at 764 .

In doing so, we set forth the following analytical framework for ALJs when considering subpoena requests: [WJhen faced with a licensee’s proffer and subpoena request, an ALJ has three distinct choices: (1) accept the proffer’s contents as true, and indicate this acceptance; (2) reach no conclusion regarding the truth of the proffer (essentially suspending judgment) and issue the subpoena; or (3) reject the proffer and subpoena request entirely, and provide a valid explanation of the rejection. Id. Additionally, in Forman , we emphasized the need for an individual to receive a full and accurate advice of rights under the implied consent statute. Forman, 332 Md. at 212-19 , 630 A.2d at 759-63 .

We stated that it is imperative that a “person detained for drunk driving ... be capable of making a knowing and voluntary decision to refuse the alcohol concentration test.” Forman, 332 Md. at 218 , 630 A.2d at 762 . This is because an individual’s driver’s license is an important property interest that may be vital to his or her ability to function in society on a daily basis. See Forman, 332 Md. at 214 , 630 A.2d at 760 . Importantly, we clarified that “ ‘[flully advised’ [under § 16-205.1(f)(8)(i)(3)] means not only advised initially, but the detaining officer must also take care not to subsequently confuse or mislead the driver as to his or her rights under the statute.” Forman, 332 Md. at 217 , 630 A.2d at 762 (Emphasis in original).

Likewise, we cautioned that due process demands that the State “not mislead the defendant or ³⁴⁶ construct road blocks, thus unduly burdening [the defendant’s] decision-making.” Forman, 332 Md. at 215 , 630 A.2d at 761 (quoting Hare v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 326 Md. 296, 304 , 604 A.2d 914, 918 (1992)). Two years after Forman , in Motor Vehicle Administration v. Karwacki, supra, 340 Md. at 288-89 , 666 A.2d at 519 , we reaffirmed the three-option framework enunciated in Forman . Karwacki, charged under § 16-205.1, argued, like Forman, that he was not fully advised under the statute. Karwacki, 340 Md. at 279 , 666 A.2d at 515 .

Specifically, as a repeat offender, Karwacki contended that the arresting officer only advised him that his license would be suspended for 120 days and did not inform him of the increased term of suspension for a second offense. Id. Faced with conflicting evidence from Karwacki’s testimony and the officer’s certification on the DR-15 form, the ALJ concluded that the certification was more credible than the driver’s drunken recollection and suspended his license. Karwacki, 340 Md. at 278 , 666 A.2d at 514 .

Affirming the decision, we noted that “the ALJ was under no obligation to believe [Karwacki]” over the prima facie evidence of the DR-15 form. Karwacki, 340 Md. at 289 , 666 A.2d at 520 . In contrast to Forman , however, the petitioner in Karwacki did not file a motion for a subpoena request for the charging officer. 12 Id. Consequently, the ALJ was left to consider only ³⁴⁷ the evidence in front of him: the DR-15 certification form and the petitioner’s conflicting testimony.

Id. As we noted, by not subpoenaing the arresting officer, Karwacki “presented the ALJ with an all or nothing choice.” Id. Because a signed DR-15 form serves as prima facie evidence to demonstrate that the driver refused the chemical breath test, we recognized that the ALJ exercised properly his discretion to resolve the conflicting evidence against the driver. Karwacki, 340 Md. at 283, 289 , 666 A.2d at 516, 520 .

We ultimately affirmed the ALJ’s deteimination that Karwacki’s contradictory statements were not sufficient to rebut the documentary evidence. Karwacki, 340 Md. at 289 , 666 A.2d at 520 .

IV

At his suspension hearing, Fowler filed a motion requesting a subpoena for the arresting officer; therefore, we shall analyze his case according to the principles applied in Forman . As we noted, supra, where a motion for a subpoena request has been filed, an ALJ is faced with three options. Forman, 332 Md. at 222 , 630 A.2d at 764 . First, an ALJ may accept explicitly the entire proffer, denying the subpoena request.

Id. The ALJ then assesses all the evidence before him or her, including the proffer. Id. Under this option, an ALJ determines if the proffer, assumed to be true in its entirety, is sufficient to rebut any conflicting evidence.

Second, an ALJ may reject the proffer as a whole, also denying the subpoena request; however, the ALJ must provide additionally a valid explanation for the rejection. Id. As we have noted, this option “enables the ALJ to dispose of frivolous or otherwise improper subpoena requests.” Id.; see also Maryland Code (1974, 1982 Repl.Vol.), State Government Article, ³⁴⁸ § 10-213(d) (allowing agencies to exclude evidence that is incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious at administrative hearings). Finally,