Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Barrett

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Brian Barrett, No. 22, September Term, 2019 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — DUE PROCESS — RIGHTS AFFORDED TO DETAINEES — The Court of Appeals held that where a motorist refuses a blood alcohol concentration test pursuant to MD. CODE, ANN., TRANS. § 16-205.1(b) (Lexis Nexis Supp. 2018), if an administrative law judge finds that the motorist was fully advised of his or her rights despite being distracted while the Advice of Rights form was being read, that determination will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence. Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C-02-CV-18-002886 Argued: October 31, 2019 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 22 September Term, 2019 MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION v. BRIAN J. BARRETT Barbera, C.J., McDonald Watts Hotten Booth Harrell, Glenn T., Jr., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) Greene, Clayton, Jr., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ. Opinion by Barbera, C.J. Filed: January 24, 2020 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2020-01-24 14:00-05:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk The question before this Court involves application of Maryland’s “implied consent” statute, MD.

CODE, ANN., TRANS. (“TR”) § 16-205.1(b) (Lexis Nexis Supp. 2018). We must decide the proper outcome under the statute when a motorist refuses to take a blood alcohol concentration test after having been advised via the Motor Vehicle Administration (“MVA”) DR-15 “Advice of Rights” form and later claims a failure of the law enforcement officer to “fully advise” the motorist of his rights. Brian J. Barrett, Respondent, had his driver’s license suspended because he refused to take a blood alcohol concentration test after being detained for suspicion of driving while under the influence of alcohol.

An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) upheld the MVA’s Order of Suspension after finding that Respondent had been advised in conformity with MVA form DR-15. The ALJ modified the suspension to allow Respondent to participate in the Ignition Interlock Program for one year. Respondent’s refusal to take the test nevertheless resulted in a one-year disqualification of his Maryland Commercial Driver’s License (“CDL”). On judicial review, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County reversed the suspension after finding that Respondent was not fully advised of his rights because he was distracted while the detaining police officer explained the administrative sanctions for refusing to take a blood alcohol concentration test.

Petitioner, the MVA, appeals that decision. For reasons we explain, we hold that Respondent was fully advised of his rights per TR § 16-205.1(b)(1) despite two police officers speaking to him simultaneously—one reading the DR-15 and the other asking questions. We therefore affirm the determination by the ALJ that the police officers’ simultaneous speaking did not prevent Respondent from understanding his rights and the sanctions for refusing to submit to a blood alcohol concentration test, as outlined in the DR-15. The Facts The Traffic Stop Respondent is a Maryland resident and possesses a CDL.

On April 22, 2018, Officer Thornton observed Respondent commit multiple traffic violations, including driving above the posted speed limit and making unsafe lane changes. Officer Thornton executed a traffic stop, approached Respondent, and detected a strong odor of alcohol; he also noticed that Respondent’s eyes were bloodshot and he exhibited slurred speech. Officer Thornton ordered Respondent out of the vehicle and conducted standardized field sobriety tests. Because Respondent performed poorly on the tests and showed other signs of impairment, Officer Thornton handcuffed Respondent and placed him in the front passenger seat of a patrol vehicle.

While Officer Thornton and Respondent were roadside in the patrol vehicle, Officer Thornton read Respondent the DR-15. Respondent was given a copy of the form so he could follow along as it was read to him. As the DR-15 advisement of rights was being read, another police officer, Officer Claytor, approached Respondent. Through the open window on the passenger side of the patrol vehicle, Officer Claytor asked Respondent several questions, such as whether he “would blow,” i.e., submit to a blood alcohol concentration test.

Officer Claytor asked those questions while Officer Thornton was reading the DR-15 aloud. Once Officer Thornton finished reading the form, he and Officer 2 Claytor asked Respondent multiple times whether Respondent would submit to the test. After asking a seventh time without a response from Respondent, Officer Thornton marked on the DR-15 that Respondent refused to take the test. Respondent was transported to the police station for processing.

At the station, Officer Thornton and Respondent signed the DR-15 form. The acknowledgment on the DR-15 states, “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.” Below the acknowledgment, the form asks, “Having been so advised, do you now agree to submit to a test?” Officer Thornton checked the box below that states, “No – Alcohol concentration test refused[,]” and Respondent’s signature appears underneath. As required by TR § 16-205.1, Respondent’s driver’s license was subject to a 270-day suspension, and his refusal to take the test prompted a one-year disqualification of his CDL. Administrative Proceedings Respondent requested an administrative hearing, which took place on July 12, 2018.1 At the hearing, Respondent averred that he was not fully advised of his rights due to the roadside noise and Officer Claytor’s questioning him while the DR-15 was being read.

The hearing was continued, and the ALJ subpoenaed Officer Thornton. When the hearing resumed on September 25, 2018, Officer Thornton and Respondent testified about the incident. 1 Under TR § 16-205.1(f)(1)(ii), a motorist whose driver’s license was suspended for a test refusal may request a hearing before an ALJ. 3 Officer Thornton detailed the events surrounding Respondent’s arrest. He testified that after Respondent was handcuffed and seated in the patrol vehicle, Officer Thornton read the DR-15 aloud to Respondent. While reading, Officer Claytor asked Respondent questions.

Respondent testified that he could not hear Officer Thornton over Officer Claytor and asked Officer Claytor to stop speaking. He further testified, “I could hear him reading. I only recall a few parts of [the DR-15], very small parts and I could not understand what [Officer Thornton] was trying to tell me.” After Officer Thornton was done reading, the officers repeatedly asked Respondent whether he would take the test, and Respondent asked several times, “what should I do?” After asking a seventh time whether Respondent would take the test, Officer Thornton interpreted Respondent’s unresponsive utterances as a refusal. Based on that testimony, the ALJ concluded that Respondent violated TR § 16- 205.1.

The ALJ explained that there was sufficient evidence to determine that Respondent was apprised of the administrative sanctions that would be imposed if he refused to take the test. In coming to that conclusion, the ALJ made a credibility determination, stating “although the officer may have been talking, I just don’t find credible that he could talk so much that you couldn’t understand the form that was there in front of you.” The ALJ specifically noted that Respondent had a copy of the DR-15 while Officer Thornton read it aloud, he asked Officer Thornton several times whether or not he should take the test, and he later signed the form at the station before his release. Based on those facts, the ALJ 4 ordered that Respondent’s CDL remain disqualified for a year,2 but in lieu of upholding the 270-day driver’s license suspension the ALJ allowed Respondent to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program. TR § 16-404.1(f)(1)(i) (permitting an ALJ to “[m]odify a suspension and issue a restricted license” to a motorist who qualifies as a program participant).

The Circuit Court Hearing Respondent appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County pursuant to TR § 12-209(a),3 and a hearing was held on March 18, 2019. At the hearing, Respondent argued that he was not fully advised of his rights as required by TR § 16-205.1. Respondent argued that he was distracted by Officer Claytor’s questioning and therefore Respondent could not understand the DR-15 as it was read to him by Officer Thornton. The MVA countered that the Advice of Rights need only be made available to the driver; police officers are not obligated to ensure that motorists understand those rights.

The ALJ made a factual finding that the DR-15 was read aloud to Respondent and he was 2 Under TR § 16-205.1(b)(1)(iii) and § 16-812(a)(3), the MVA disqualifies a CDL for one year if the motorist holding the CDL refuses to take a blood alcohol concentration test. 3 TR § 12-209(a) states: (1) Any aggrieved party to a hearing may appeal from a decision or order of the Administration in accordance with this subsection. (2) If the matter concerns the license of an individual to drive and the individual is a resident of this State, the aggrieved party may appeal to the circuit court for the county in which the individual resides. 5 given a copy to read himself. The MVA further argued that a police officer cannot fully ensure that a presumably intoxicated motorist understands the DR-15 form. Based on the facts presented, the ALJ did not find it credible that Officer Claytor’s questioning inhibited Respondent from understanding those rights.

On judicial review, the circuit court understood the issue presented in the instant case to be a mixed question of law and fact. The circuit court found in favor of Respondent and reversed the decision of the ALJ. The circuit court was concerned about the limitations on a “compromised human mind . . . to be read and understand something” when another