Motor Vehicle Administration v. Seenath

WATTS, J. This case requires us to determine the amount of notice that the Motor Vehicle Administration (“the MVA”), Petitioner, is required to provide the holder of a commercial driver’s license in the “Advice of Rights” form, previously labeled “DR-15,” 1 ¹⁴⁹ as to the commercial driver’s license holder’s eligibility for a restrictive license after having failed an alcohol concentration test. The purpose of the Advice of Rights form is to assist law enforcement officers with making the advisements that are required by Md.Code Ann., Transp. (1977, 2012 RepLVol., 2015 Supp.) (“TR”) § 16-205.1, 2 “commonly known as the ‘implied consent, administrative per se law,’ which provides a basis for the automatic suspension of the licenses of drivers who refuse to submit to testing for alcohol and drugs.” Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Gonce, 446 Md. 100, 102 , 130 A.3d 436, 437-38 (2016) (citation omitted). 3 ¹⁵⁰ In this case, Sundar Seenath (“Seenath”), Respondent, a holder of a commercial driver’s license, contends that the Advice of Rights form violates due process under the United States Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights because the form does not advise that a holder of a commercial driver’s license who drives a non-commercial motor vehicle and fails an alcohol concentration test — by taking an alcohol concentration test that indicates an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher 4 — is ineligible for a “restrictive license,” which allows a driver to drive only for certain purposes, for example, in the course of employment. In a petition for a writ of certiorari, the MVA raised the following issue: “Does the standard Advice of Rights form (DR-15) provide the necessary information to a driver who holds a commercial driver’s license of the consequences of submitting to a test of blood alcohol content if the driver’s results are 0.08 or more?” We answer this question “yes,” and hold that the Advice of Rights form is not misleading as to the eligibility for a restrictive license of a holder of a commercial driver’s license and that the Advice of Rights form comports with due process. ¹⁵¹ BACKGROUND Facts On February 18, 2015, Officer Romack 5 of the Montgomery County Police Department issued to Seenath an “Officer’s Certification and Order of Suspension” that contained the following facts, which we summarize.

At 10:55 p.m. on February 18, 2015, Officer Norizn 6 saw that Seenath was driving a 2004 Ford pickup — ie., a non-commercial motor vehicle— south on Maryland Route 355 near the intersection with Redland Boulevard. Seenath was stopped for changing lanes in an unsafe manner while the Ford pickup was close to another vehicle. At least one of the officers noticed that Seenath had bloodshot eyes and a strong odor of alcohol. One of the officers administered the three-part Standardized Field Sobriety Test. 7 ¹⁵² Although the Officer’s Certification and Order of Suspension does not make clear the results of the three-part Standardized Field Sobriety Test, 8 an administrative law judge found that the evidence of Seenath’s intoxication included his “poor performance on” the three-part Standardized Field Sobriety Test.

According to the Officer’s Certification and Order of Suspension, Seenath took a preliminary breath test, which indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.161. Officer Romack arrested Seenath and provided him with an Advice of Rights form. The Advice of Rights form, which was labeled “DR-15,” had been produced in November 2012, and stated in pertinent part: You have been stopped or detained[,] and reasonable grounds exist to believe that you have been driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle under circumstances requiring that you be asked to submit to a test under [TR] § 16 — 205[.]1[ ]. In this situation, the law deems that you have consented to take a test to measure the alcohol concentration or drug or controlled dangerous substance content in your system.

You may refuse to submit to the test(s), unless you were in a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of[,] or life-threatening injury to[,] another person[.] Suspension of Your Maryland Driver’s License or Driving Privilege: If you refuse to submit to the test, or submit to the test and the result indicates an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more at the time of testing, your Maryland driver’s license will be confiscated, you will be issued an Order of Suspension^] and, if eligible, a temporary license [that will be] valid for 45 ¹⁵³ days[.] The following periods of suspension shall be imposed against your license or privilege to drive in Maryland[.] If your test result is an alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 but less than 0.15: The suspension will be 45 days for a first offense and 90 days for a second or subsequent offense. If your test result is an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more: The suspension will be 90 days for a first offense and 180 days for a second or subsequent offense. If you refuse to submit to a test: The suspension will be 120 days for a first offense and one (1) year for a second or subsequent offense. An additional criminal penalty of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than 2 months[,] or both, may be imposed under [TR] § 27-101(x) [ ] if you are convicted of a drunk or drugged driving offense under [TR] § 21-902, and the judge or jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that you knowingly refused to take a test arising out of the same circumstances[.] If you hold a commercial driver’s license [ ] and were driving a non-commercial motor vehicle when you were stopped, and refuse to submit to a test, your [commercial driver’s license] or privilege will be disqualified for one (1) year for a first offense[,] or for life if your [commercial driver’s license] or privilege has been previously disqualified for at least one (1) year under [TR] § 16-812(a) or (b) [ ], a federal law, or any other [S]tate’s law[.] If you were driving a commercial motor vehicle and refuse the test, your [commercial driver’s license] or privilege will be disqualified as set forth below[.] Modification of the Suspension or Issuance of a Restrictive License: If your test result is an alcohol concentration of 0.08 but less than 0.15: The suspension may be modified or a restrictive license issued at a hearing in certain circumstances[.] If you refuse a test, or take a test with a result of 0.15 or more: You will be ineligible for modification of the ¹⁵⁴ suspension or issuance of a restrictive license, unless you participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program under [TR] § 16-404.1 [ ].

This program requires the vehicle(s) [that] you drive to be equipped with a device that prevents you from operating it if you have alcohol in your blood[.] At a hearing, if you request one, an administrative [law] judge may modify a suspension by permitting you to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program for one year, but is not required to do so[.] Instead of requesting a hearing, you may elect to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program for one year, instead of the period of suspension, if the following conditions are met[:] 1) your driver’s license is not currently suspended, revoked, canceled, or refused, 2) you were not charged with a moving violation arising out of the same circumstances as the Order of Suspension that involved the death of, or serious physical injury to, another person, and 3) within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order of Suspension!,] you[:] a) elect in writing to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program for one year, instead of requesting a hearing, and b) surrender a valid Maryland driver’s license or sign a statement certifying that the license is no longer in your possession!.] An ignition interlock election form is located on the reverse side of the driver’s copy of the Order of Suspension!.] You Have the Right to Request an Administrative Hearing: You may request an Administrative Hearing at any time within 30 days of the date of the Order of Suspension to show cause why your driver’s license or privilege should not be suspended!.] You must request a hearing within 10 days of the date of the Order of Suspension to [e]nsure that your privilege to drive is not suspended prior to your hearing!.] Your request for a hearing must be made in writing!.] You may use the “Hearing Request” form if available!.] Send your request to the Office of Administrative Hearings at 11101 Gilroy Rd[.], Hunt Valley, MD 21031-1301!.] You must include a check or money order for $150[.]00, which is ¹⁵⁵ the required filing fee, made payable to the “Maryland State Treasurer^]” Your request for a hearing will be invalid if submitted without the required $150[.]00 filing fee (or applicable fee waiver)[.] Offenses Occurring While Driving a Commercial Motor Vehicle: In addition to any suspension for a test failure or refusal, if you were operating a commercial motor vehicle and your test result indicates an alcohol concentration of 0[.]04 or more, or you refused to submit to a test, your commercial driver’s license or privilege shall be disqualified one (1) year for a first offense, or 3 years for a first offense [that was] committed while transporting hazardous materials [that are] required to be placarded, and disqualified for life if your commercial driver’s license has been previously disqualified for at least one (1) year under [TR] § 16-812(a) or (b), a federal law, or any other [S]tate’s law[.] Your Driver’s license or Privilege will be Suspended on the 46th Day after the Order of Suspension if: You do not request a hearing within 10 days of the date of the Order of Suspension^] or, if eligible, you do not elect within 30 days of the Order of Suspension to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program for one (1) year instead of requesting a hearing[.] If you submit a valid hearing request, a suspension will not be imposed unless a decision is rendered against you, or if you fail to appear for the hearing[.] Certification: I, the Undersigned [Law Enforcement] Officer, certify that I have advised the driver of the above[-]stated Advice of Rights, including the sanctions imposed for[:] 1) a refusal to take a test, 2) a test resulting in an alcohol concentration of at least 0[.]08 but less than 0[.]15, 3) a test resulting in an alcohol concentration of 0[.]15 or more, and 4) disqualifications for persons holding a commercial driver’s licensed] I, the undersigned officer, have provided the driver with the aforementioned in[:] English and Spanish[.] Read Before Signing: I, the undersigned driver, acknowledge that I have been read[,] or I have read[,] the ¹⁵⁶ above[-]stated Advice of Rights as certified by the [law-enforcement] officer[.] I understand that this requested test is in addition to any preliminary tests that were taken[.] Having been so advised, do you now agree to submit to a test? (Officer check reply) (Emphasis in original). At 11:37 p.m. on February 18, 2015, Seenath consented to take an alcohol concentration test; the box next to the words “Yes — Agree to submit to an alcohol concentration test” on the Advice of Rights form was checked; and Seenath signed the form. According to a “Notification to Defendant of Result of Test for Alcohol Concentration” (some capitalization omitted), at 11:47 p.m. on February 18, 2015, a specimen of Seenath’s breath was collected; an alcohol concentration test of Seenath’s breath indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.15.

According to the Officer’s Certification and Order of Suspension, Officer Romack confiscated Seenath’s commercial driver’s license and issued Seenath a temporary driver’s license, which would be valid for 45 days; starting on the forty-sixth day, Seenath’s commercial driver’s license would be suspended for 90 days. Proceedings Before the Administrative Law Judge Seenath requested an administrative hearing. On May 27, 2015, an administrative law judge (“the ALJ”) of the Office of Administrative Hearings conducted a hearing, at which Seenath was represented by counsel. Without objection, the ALJ admitted into evidence, among other things, the Officer’s Certification and Order of Suspension, the Advice of Rights form, and the Notification to Defendant of Result of Test for Alcohol Concentration.

Through counsel, Seenath moved that no action be taken with respect to the suspension of his commercial driver’s license on the ground that the Officer’s Certification and Order of Suspension did not state reasonable grounds for requesting an alcohol concentration test. Specifically, Seenath’s counsel stated that the handwritten notations under ¹⁵⁷ “REASONABLE GROUNDS” were “impossible to interpreté” 9 The ALJ denied the motion on the ground that the strong odor of alcohol on Seenath was sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for requesting an alcohol concentration test. Seenath testified at the administrative hearing that he had participated in alcohol counseling; that he owned his own business, SS Trucking, of which four dump trucks were a part; and that he drove a dump truck five to six days per week. Seenath did not testify about any matter with regard to his signing or understanding of the Advice of Rights form.

After testifying, Seenath, through counsel, again moved for no action with respect to the suspension of his commercial driver’s license, this time on the ground that the Advice of Rights form “did not fully advise him of all the potential consequences.” Specifically, Seenath’s counsel argued that the Advice of Rights form did not advise that, if a commercial driver’s license holder’s license is suspended, the driver cannot have access to a commercial driver’s license through a restrictive license or participation in the Ignition Interlock System Program. Seenath’s counsel stated: [T]his form is particularly deceptive to someone who is in [Seenath]’s position becausef,] with regard to a [commercial driver’s license], the only thing that it alleges is, look, if you refuse, you’re going to lose your [commercial driver’s license] for a year. And[,] by asserting that and not mentioning the other aspect[ — ]that[,] if you get any modification, you’re also going to lose your [commercial driver’s license— i]t creates the impression that the only way [that] you’re going to lose your [commercial driver’s license] is if you refuse. So [Seenath] then goes ahead and he takes the test with a form that leads someone to believe [that] you’ll be okay, you’ll get to keep your [commercial driver’s license], you can even put an [ignition interlock [system] in a dump truck if you need to and keep on driving, you might get a ¹⁵⁸ restrictive] license and keep on driving.

So[,] when [Seenath] comes into my office, I have to tell him that, no, this form is incorrect as it applies to you. You are subject to a different aspect of the law, [Code of Maryland Regulations (“COMAR”) 11.11.12.07,] which is not mentioned in this [Advice of Rights] form. (Paragraph break omitted). COMAR 11.11.12.07A states: “The [MVA] may not issue any type of temporary, conditional, or work[-]restricted license permitting an individual to drive a commercial motor vehicle during any period in which the individual’s driving privilege is disqualified, refused, cancelled, suspended, or revoked in this or any other state in accordance with [TR] §[ ]16 — 808 [ (Persons Ineligible to Drive Commercial Motor Vehicles) ] and 49 [Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) ] §[ ]384.210 [ (Limitation on Licensing) ].” The ALJ ruled as follows: I’m going to respond to your [m]otion, first with a common! ]sense response, and then cite case law.

The common! ]sense response is, if a driver is driving with alcohol in his or her system and the amount of the alcohol is [0].15 or greater, if the driver would submit to the [alcohol concentration] test, then a [0].15 or greater ... would result in the possibility of a 90-day suspension!,] or[,] in the alternative, the Ignition Interlock [System Program]. If the driver has a [commercial [d]river’s [l]icense, that means that the driver!,] under either the circumstance of taking the [alcohol concentration] test or refusing the [alcohol concentration] test[,] would face suspension!,] and, therefore, the loss of the [commercial driver’s license]. I don’t believe [that] there is a requirement that the driver be advised of this aspect because!,] under either circumstance, no matter what decision the driver would make, the [commercial driver’s license] would have to be converted to a non[-]commercial license. There’s no decision [that] the driver could make with [0].15 or greater in his or her system that would not result in the [commercial driver’s license’s] being disqualified.

The case law aspect in light of that common[ ]sense factual argument, I have to go back to Hare v[. Motor ¹⁵⁹ Vehicle Admin.], 826 Md. 296 [, 604 A.2d 914 (1992) ], and Hare generally is not cited anymore because the [General Assembly] amended [TR] 16-205.1. But the principle in Hare that was announced is still valid[,] and that is, due process does not require that the driver be told of every conceivable incentive for taking a chemical test for alcohol[,] or even[ ] one additional incentive [that is] not required by [TR] 16-205.1. And[,] in fact, the law favors the taking of the [alcohol concentration] test.

This is actually not a refusal case. But again, the consequences were described in the [Advice of Rights form], the eligibility for the Ignition Interlock [System Program], and not every conceivable outcome has to be explained. So[,] for those reasons[,] I am going to deny your motion. (Italics and paragraph breaks omitted).

Seenath’s counsel responded: [I]f the MVA and the case law and the courts are going to say[,] use this form, right, give him some advice, the advice should be accurate.... [I]f you’re going to advise someone of these rights, you got to tell them the significant things, and the significant thing being, he’s not eligible really for a restrictive] license and keeping his [commercial driver’s license]. The ALJ stated: “[Y]our argument is preserved[.]” Through counsel, Seenath declined to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program. In making conclusions of law, the ALJ stated: You argued that[,] because you had a [commercial driver’s license], the Advice of Rights [form] did not fully inform you of the administrative sanctions to be imposed. However, the consequences of refusing or taking the [alcohol concentration] test and scoring [0].15 or higher would be the same for a [commercial driver’s license’s] disqualification.

Hare[], 326 Md. 296 [, 604 A.2d 914 ] indicates [that] the drivers need not be advised of every conceivable outcome concerning submitting to or refusing an alcohol [concentration] test. Hill v[. Motor Vehicle Admin.], 4[15] Md. 231[, ¹⁶⁰ 999 A.2d 1019 ] (2010) addressed the [commercial driver’s license] issue vis-á-vis[ ] the participation of the Ignition Interlock [System P]rogram. (Italics and paragraph breaks omitted).

The ALJ concluded that Seenath had violated TR § 16-205.1, and suspended Seenath’s commercial driver’s license for 90 days. On the same day as the administrative hearing, the ALJ issued an order to the same effect. As a result of having consented to take the alcohol concentration test — as opposed to refusing to take the alcohol concentration test — Seenath’s ability to drive commercial motor vehicles was not disqualified for one year. Proceedings in the Circuit Court On June 4, 2015, Seenath petitioned for judicial review.

On October 21, 2015, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (“the circuit court”) conducted a hearing. The circuit court reversed the decision of the ALJ and ruled in pertinent part as follows: [T]he [Advice of Rights] form need not advise a driver of every possible contingency that might be available with regard to the suspension of his [or her] driver’s license. However, the [Advice of Rights] form must advise the driver of the sanctions that the [General Assembly] had mandated for inclusion in the form, and those sanctions are found in [TR §] 16-205.1[ ]. But the [Advice of Rights form] must also inform the driver of sanctions that are required, not mere potential sanctions.

It’s also clear that the continued possession of a driver’s license is essential to earning a livelihood, and it cannot be suspended without due process of law. Due process requires that the officer advise the driver of the applicable sanctions [that] exist. It is clear that the suspension of a [commercial driver’s] license for taking and failing a breath test is a certainty. The holder of a [commercial driver’s] license will receive a 45-day suspension for a first test failure and a 90-day suspension for a subsequent failure or a[n alcohol concentration] test result above a [0].15....

It fails to adequately advise the petitioner of the sanctions that he [or she] faces for failing to pass ¹⁶¹ the breathalyzer test. It’s particularly egregious ... when the [A]dvice of [RJights [form] ... partially address[es] the consequences of refusing to submit to a[n alcohol concentration] test while driving a non-commercial motor vehicle while holding a commercial driver’s license, but then fails to go on to advise the petitioner of the consequences of failing to pass the breathalyzer test. Due process dictates that he be so advised. The law requires that he be so advised.

Accordingly, I’m going to reverse the decision of the [ALJ], [and] vacate the suspension that was imposed. (Paragraph breaks omitted). On the same day as the hearing, the circuit court issued an order to the same effect. Afterward, on November 25, 2015, the MVA petitioned for a writ of certiorari.

On January 27, 2016, this Court granted the petition. See Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Seenath, 446 Md. 218 , 130 A.3d 507 (2016). DISCUSSION The Parties’ Contentions The MVA contends that the Advice of Rights form that Seenath signed satisfied due process. The MVA argues that Seenath’s right to due process was not violated because the Advice of Rights form did not prejudice Seenath, a first-time offender who chose to consent to take an alcohol concentration test and whose commercial driver’s license was suspended for 90 days due to an alcohol concentration of 0.15; as the Advice of Rights form stated, Seenath’s commercial driver’s license would have been suspended for 120 days if Seenath had chosen to refuse to take an alcohol concentration test, and his ability to drive commercial vehicles would have been disqualified for one year.

Seenath responds that the Advice of Rights form violated his right to due process because it did not inform him that, if he failed an alcohol concentration test, his commercial driver’s license would necessarily be suspended, and he would be ineligible for a restrictive commercial driver’s license, even if he participated in the Ignition Interlock System Program. ¹⁶² Seenath contends that the Advice of Rights form falsely suggested that, if a commercial driver’s license holder drove a non-commercial motor vehicle and failed an alcohol concentration test, then the result would be either no suspension of the commercial driver’s license, or a suspension with eligibility for a restrictive commercial driver’s license. Seenath argues that, in discussing restrictive licenses, the Advice of Rights form fails to distinguish between commercial driver’s licenses and non-commercial driver’s licenses. Standard of Review Where, as here, the facts are undisputed, a court determines whether an administrative law judge’s decision “is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law.” Hill, 415 Md. at 239 , 999 A.2d at 1023 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A court reviews without deference an administrative law judge’s conclusion as to a matter of constitutional law.

See Md. State Comptroller of Treasury v. Wynne, 431 Md. 147, 161 , 64 A.3d 453, 461 (2013), aff'd sub nom. Comptroller of Treasury of Md. v. Wynne, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1787 , 191 L.Ed.2d 813 (2015) (“Because our review of its analysis turns on a question of constitutional law, we do not defer to the agency’s determination.” (Citation omitted)). Implied Consent and Mandatory Suspensions “We begin by examining the relevant provisions of TR § 16-205.1, the implied consent, administrative per se law.” Gonce, 446 Md. at 110 , 130 A.3d at 442 (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). TR § 16-205.1(a)(2) provides for “implied consent” as follows: Any person who drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a highway or on any private property that is used by the public in general in this State is deemed to have consented, subject to the provisions of [Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud.

Proc. (1973, 2013 RepLVol.) (“CJP”)] §§ 10-302 through 10-309, [ 10 ] to take a test if the person should be detained on ¹⁶³ suspicion of driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of alcohol, while impaired by alcohol, while so far impaired by any drug, any combination of drugs, or a combination of one or more drugs and alcohol that the person could not drive a vehicle safely, while impaired by a controlled dangerous substance, in violation of an alcohol restriction, or in violation of [TR] § 16-813 [ (Driving Motor Vehicle with Alcohol Concentration in Blood or Breath Prohibited) ]. Despite TR § 16-205.1(a)(2)’s embodiment of “implied consent,” a person cannot be compelled to take an alcohol concentration test unless the “person is involved in a motor vehicle accident that results in the death of, or a life[-]threatening injury to, another person and the person is detained by a police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has been driving or attempting to drive while” impaired, TR § 16-205.1(c)(l); see TR § 16-205.1(b)(l) (“Except as provided in [TR § 16-205.1](c) [ ], a person may not be compelled to take a test.”). In other words, if a driver has not been involved in a motor vehicle accident that results in death or a life-threatening injury to another person, then the driver may refuse to take an alcohol concentration test.

In the absence of a motor vehicle accident that results in death or a life-threatening injury to another person, if a person is detained on suspicion of driving or attempting to drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the person is deemed under the implied consent law to have consented to alcohol or drug testing, and is subject to a mandatory suspension of his or her driver’s license for not consenting to take a test. Indeed, refusing to take an alcohol concentration test has serious consequences. If a driver refuses to take an alcohol concentration test, then the MVA must suspend the driver’s license for 120 days for a first offense, and must suspend the driver’s license for 1 year for a second or subsequent offense. See TR § 16-205.1(f)(4)(i)(5), (f)(8)(v)(5). ¹⁶⁴ Refusing to take an alcohol concentration test has additional consequences for a holder of a Maryland commercial driver’s license.

Specifically, under TR § 16 — 205.1(f)(4)(ii)(1): In the case of a person operating a commercial motor vehicle or who holds ... a commercial driver’s license who refuses to take a test, [the MVA shall] disqualify the person from operating a commercial motor vehicle for a period of 1 year for a first offense, 3 years for a first offense [that] occurs while transporting hazardous materials [that are] required to be placarded, and for life for a second or subsequent offense [that] occurs while operating any commercial [motor] vehicle[.] As does refusing to take an alcohol concentration test, failing an alcohol concentration test has serious consequences. The length of the mandatory suspension depends on the driver’s alcohol concentration; the higher the driver’s alcohol concentration, the longer the mandatory suspension. If a driver was not involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of another person, and an alcohol concentration test indicates that the driver’s alcohol concentration is at least 0.08 but less than 0.15, then the MVA must suspend the driver’s license for 45 days for a first offense, and must suspend the driver’s license for 90 days for a second or subsequent offense. See TR § 16-205.1(f)(4)(i)(l), (f)(8)(v)(l).

If a driver was not involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of another person, and an alcohol concentration test indicates that the driver’s alcohol concentration is 0.15 or higher, then the MVA must suspend the driver’s license for 90 days for a first offense, and must suspend the driver’s license for 180 days for a second or subsequent offense. See TR § 16-205.1(f)(4)(i)(2), (f)(8)(v)(2). All of these mandatory suspensions apply to commercial driver’s licenses and non-commercial driver’s licenses alike. Modifications of Suspensions and Restrictive Licenses Under certain circumstances, the MVA may issue a modification of a suspension or a restrictive license, which allows a driver to drive only for certain purposes — for example, in the ¹⁶⁵ course of employment.

A driver is eligible for a modification of a suspension or a restrictive license without participation in the Ignition Interlock System Program — which we describe below — only if an alcohol concentration test indicates an alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 but less than 0.15, and, during the past 5 years, the driver’s license has not been suspended under TR § 16-205.1 and the driver has not been convicted under TR § 21-902 (Driving While Under the Influence or Impairment of Alcohol or Drugs Prohibited). See TR § 16-205.1(n)(l). TR § 16-205.1(n)(2) describes additional criteria for a modification of a suspension or a restrictive license without participation in the Ignition Interlock System Program as follows: The [MVA] may modify a suspension under [TR § 16-205.1] or issue a restrictive license if the [MVA] finds that: (i) The licensee is required to drive a motor vehicle in the course of employment; (ii) The license is required for the purpose of attending an alcohol prevention or treatment program; (iii) The licensee has no alternative means of transportation available to or from the licensee’s place of employment and, without the license, the licensee’s ability to earn a living would be severely impaired; (iv) The license is required for the purpose of obtaining health care treatment, including a prescription, that is necessary for the licensee or a member of the licensee’s immediate family and the licensee and the licensee’s immediate family have no alternative means of transportation available to obtain the health care treatment; or (v) The license is required for the purpose of attending a noncollegiate educational institution ... or a regular program at an institution of postsecondary education. As explained above, however, under TR § 16-205.1(f)(4)(ii)(l), the MVA must “disqualify” a holder of a Maryland commercial driver’s license from driving a commercial motor vehicle for at least 1 year if he or she refuses to take an alcohol concentration test.

Under that circumstance, ¹⁶⁶ the holder of the Maryland commercial driver’s license is ineligible for a modification of the disqualification or a restrictive commercial driver’s license. See TR § 16-205.1(f)(8)(vii) (“A disqualification of ... a commercial driver’s license is not subject to any modifications, nor may a restricted ... commercial driver’s license be issued in lieu of a disqualification.”). In other words, if a holder of a Maryland commercial driver’s license refuses to take an alcohol concentration test, then he or she will be disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle for at least 1 year, and he or she will be ineligible for a modification of the disqualification or a restrictive commercial driver’s license — even if the holder of the Maryland commercial driver’s license participates in the Ignition Interlock System Program. Similarly, if a holder of a Maryland commercial driver’s license fails an alcohol concentration test, then he or she is ineligible for a restrictive commercial driver’s license — even if the holder of the Maryland commercial driver’s license participates in the Ignition Interlock System Program.

COMAR 11.11.12.07A provides that “the [MVA] may not issue any type of temporary, conditional, or work[-]restricted license permitting an individual to drive a commercial motor vehicle during any period in which the individual’s driving privilege is disqualified, refused, cancelled, suspended, or revoked in this or any other state in accordance with [TR] §[ ]16-808 [ (Persons Ineligible to Drive Commercial Motor Vehicles) ] and 49 CFR §[ ]384.210 [ (Limitation on Licensing) ].” Also, TR § 16-808(a)(5) provides that “[a] person may not drive a commercial motor vehicle on any highway ... [w]hile the person’s driver’s license ... is suspended in this State[.]” In short, under TR § 16 — 205.1 (f)(8)(vii) and COMAR 11.11.12.07A, there is no such thing as a “restrictive commercial driver’s license.” A holder of a commercial driver’s license may participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program, but doing so will not result in a restrictive commercial driver’s license; instead, participation in the Ignition Interlock System Program may result only in a modification of a ¹⁶⁷ suspension, under which the driver will be allowed to drive only non-commercial motor vehicles. See, e.g., Hill, 415 Md. at 239 , 999 A.2d at 1023 (An administrative law judge modified a suspension of a commercial driver’s license so that the driver could drive non-commercial motor vehicles while participating in the Ignition Interlock System Program.). Ignition Interlock System Program It is possible for the MVA to issue a modification of a suspension or a restrictive license even if a driver refused to take an alcohol concentration test; an alcohol concentration test indicated an alcohol concentration of at least 0.15; or an alcohol concentration test indicated an alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 but less than 0.15, but the driver does not otherwise satisfy TR § 16-205.1(n)’s criteria. See TR § 16-205.1 (o )(1).

Under these circumstances, the MVA may issue a modification of a suspension or a restrictive license if and only if the driver participates in the Ignition Interlock System Program for 1 year. See TR § 16-205.1(o )(2). “A participant is considered to begin participation in the [Ignition Interlock System] Program when the participant provides evidence of the installation of an ignition interlock system by an approved service provider in a manner required by the [MVA].” TR § 16-404.1(h). An ignition interlock system is “[a] device [that is] installed in a motor vehicle to determine the driver’s [breath] alcohol [concentration] before the vehicle can be started and to prevent [the motor vehicle’s] being started if the [breath] alcohol [concentration] registers as being above the acceptable limit.” Ignition-Interlock Device, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed.2014). Advisements and Other Actions that TR § 16-205.1(b) Requires TR § 16-205.1(b) requires a law enforcement officer to advise a detained driver of certain provisions of TR § 16-205.1.

The advisements that pertain to all holders of Maryland driver’s licenses are as follows: ¹⁶⁸ [T]he detaining officer shall advise the person that, on receipt of a sworn statement from the officer that the person was so charged and refused to take a test, or was tested and the result indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, the [MVA] shall: (i) In the case of a person licensed under this title: 1. Except as provided in items 2, 3, and 4 of this item, for a test result indicating an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more at the time of testing: A. For a first offense, suspend the driver’s license for 45 days; or B. For a second or subsequent offense, suspend the driver’s license for 90 days; 2. Except as provided in item 4 of this item, for a test result indicating an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more at the time of testing: A. For a first offense, suspend the person’s driving privilege for 90 days; or B. For a second or subsequent offense, suspend the person’s driving privilege for 180 days; 3. Except as provided in item 4 of this item, for a test result indicating an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more at the time of testing, if the person was involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of another person: A. For a first offense, suspend the person’s driving privilege for 6 months; or B. For a second or subsequent offense, suspend the person’s driving privilege for 1 year; 4.

For a test result indicating an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more at the time of testing, if the person was involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of another person: A. For a first offense, suspend the person’s driving privilege for 1 year; or ¹⁶⁹ B. For a second or subsequent offense, revoke the person’s driving privilege; or 5. For a test refusal: A. For a first offense, suspend the driver’s license for 120 days; or B. For a second or subsequent offense, suspend the driver’s license for 1 year[.] TR § 16-205.1(b)(l)(i). TR § 16-205.1(b)(l)(iii) requires that detaining officers advise holders of Maryland commercial driver’s licenses as follows: [T]he detaining officer shall advise the person that, on receipt of a sworn statement from the officer that the person was so charged and refused to take a test, or was tested and the result indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, the [MVA] shall ... [, i]n addition to any applicable driver’s license suspensions authorized under [TR § 16-205.1], in the case of a person operating a commercial motor vehicle or who holds ... a commercial driver’s license who refuses to take a test: 1. Disqualify the person’s ... commercial driver’s license for a period of 1 year for a first offense, 3 years for a first offense which occurs while transporting hazardous materials [that are] required to be placarded, and disqualify for life if the person’s ... commercial driver’s license has been previously disqualified for at least 1 year under: A. [TR] § 16-812(a) or (b) [ ]; B. A federal law; or C. Any other [S]tate’s law[.] TR § 16-205.1 (b)(l)(iii).

TR § 16-205.1(b)(l)(iii) does not require that a detaining officer advise the holder of a commercial driver’s license that a restrictive commercial driver’s license is not available to the holder of the commercial driver’s license. Before a driver either consents or refuses to take an alcohol concentration test, TR § 16 — 205.1(b)(2) requires additional ¹⁷⁰ advisements and other actions by a law enforcement officer as follows: Except as provided in [TR § 16-205.1](c) [], if a police officer stops or detains any person who the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe is or has been driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, while impaired by alcohol, while so far impaired by any drug, any combination of drugs, or a combination of one or more drugs and alcohol that the person could not drive a vehicle safely, while impaired by a controlled dangerous substance, in violation of an alcohol restriction, or in violation of [TR] § 16 — 813[ ], and who is not unconscious or otherwise incapable of refusing to take a test, the police officer shall: (i) Detain the person; (ii) Request that the person permit a test to be taken; (iii) Advise the person of the administrative sanctions that shall be imposed for test results indicating an alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 but less than 0.15 at the time of testing; (iv) Advise the person of the administrative sanctions, including ineligibility for modification of a suspension or issuance of a restrictive license unless the person participates in the Ignition Interlock System Program under [TR] § 16-404.1 [ ], that shall be imposed for refusal to take the test and for test results indicating an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more at the time of testing; and (v) Advise the person of the additional criminal penalties that may be imposed under [TR] § 27-101(x) [ ] on conviction of a violation of [TR] § 21-902 [ ] if the person knowingly refused to take a test arising out of the same circumstances as the violation. If a driver either refuses to take an alcohol concentration test or takes an alcohol concentration test that indicates an alcohol concentration of at least 0.08, TR § 16-205.1(b)(3) requires additional advisements and other actions by a law ¹⁷¹ enforcement officer; among other things, the law enforcement officer must: (i) Confiscate the person’s driver’s license issued by this State; (ii) Acting on behalf of the [MVA], personally serve an order of suspension on the person; (iii) Issue a temporary license to drive; (iv) Inform the person that the temporary license allows the person to continue driving for 45 days if the person is licensed under this title; (v) Inform the person that: 1. The person has a right to request, at that time or within 10 days, a hearing to show cause why the driver’s license should not be suspended concerning the refusal to take the test or for test results indicating an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more at the time of testing, and the hearing will be scheduled within 45 days; and 2.

If a hearing request is not made at that time or within 10 days, but within 30 days the person requests a hearing, a hearing to show cause why the driver’s license should not be suspended concerning the refusal to take the test or for test results indicating an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more at the time of testing will be scheduled, but a request made after 10 days does not extend a temporary license issued by the police officer that allows the person to continue driving for 45 days; (vi) Advise the person of the administrative sanctions that shall be imposed in the event of failure to request a hearing, failure to attend a requested hearing, or upon an adverse finding by the hearing officer; (vii) Inform the person that, if the person refuses a test or takes a test that indicates an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more at the time of testing, the person may participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program under [TR] § 16-404.1 [] instead of requesting a hearing under this paragraph, if the following conditions are met: ¹⁷² 1. The person’s driver’s license is not currently suspended, revoked, canceled, or refused; 2. The person was not charged with a moving violation arising out of the same circumstances as an administrative offense under [TR § 16-205.1] that involved a death of, or serious physical injury to, another person; and 3. Within the same time limits set forth in item (v) of this paragraph, the person: A. Surrenders a valid Maryland driver’s license or signs a statement certifying that the driver’s license is no longer in the person’s possession; and B. Elects in writing to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program for 1 year[.] To assist law enforcement officers with making the advisements that TR § 16-205.1(b) requires, the MVA drafted, and has periodically updated, the Advice of Rights form — which, as its name suggests, advises detained drivers of certain consequences of either failing or refusing to take an alcohol concentration test.

See Hill, 415 Md. at 236-37 , 999 A.2d at 1022 (“[The Advice of Rights form] was designed by the MVA to explain to persons detained under [TR §] 16-205.1 that they have the right to refuse an alcohol concentration test, as well as to explain the potential sanctions that could arise from either taking and ‘failing’ the test (i.e., showing a systemic alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or greater) or refusing to take the test at all”). Due Process “No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const, amend. XIV § 1; see also Md. Decl. of Rts. Art. 24 (“[N]o [person] ought to be ... deprived of his [or her] life, liberty[,] or property, but ... by the Law of the land.”).

This is not the first case in which this Court has addressed the issue of whether an Advice of Rights form violated a driver’s right to due process. The first such case was Hare, 326 Md. at 306 , 604 A.2d at 918-19 , in which this Court held ¹⁷³ that the then-current Advice of Rights form did not violate a driver’s right to due process. A law enforcement officer arrested the driver for driving while impaired, and read to the driver from the Advice of Rights form. See id. at 298, 604 A.2d at 914-15 .

The law enforcement officer requested that the driver consent to take an alcohol concentration test, which the driver refused to take; accordingly, the MVA suspended his driver’s license for 120 days. See id. at 298-99, 604 A.2d at 915 . The driver requested an administrative hearing, at which he testified that he had not known that he would be ineligible for a modification of a suspension or a restrictive license if he refused to take an alcohol concentration test; 11 the driver testified that, had he known as much, he probably would have consented to take an alcohol concentration test. See id. at 297-99, 604 A.2d at 914-15 .

An administrative law judge imposed the same sanction that the MVA did. See id. at 299, 604 A.2d at 915 . In this Court, the driver contended that the Advice of Rights form violated his right to due process because it did not fully advise him of administrative sanctions. See id. at 301, 604 A.2d at 916 .

This Court explained the right to due process as follows: The continued possession of a driver’s license may become essential to earning a livelihood; as such, it is an entitlement [that] cannot be taken without the due process [that is] mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment.... What process a [person] is due is, of course, dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the case. To make that determination, we have to examine the importance of the life, liberty, or property interest at stake and the extent to which ¹⁷⁴ the questioned procedure might produce the possibility of uninformed decision-making. Against the individual’s interest, we must weigh the State’s legitimate competing interest, which necessarily includes the avoidance of the increased administrative or fiscal burdens resulting from the requested procedure.

As we have seen, [the driver’s interest in his driver’s license is an important one. Juxtaposed against that interest is the State’s interest in protecting its citizens from drunk drivers[,] and, as a means of doing so, encouraging suspected drunk drivers to take the [alcohol concentration] test, thus facilitating their prosecution. The final factor to be considered is whether the procedure chosen enhances informed decision-making. Id. at 301, 303, 604 A.2d at 916, 917 (brackets, citations, ellipsis, and internal quotation marks omitted).

This Court rejected the driver’s contention that the Advice of Rights form violated his right to due process, stating: A driver need not be told of every conceivable incentive for taking a[n alcohol concentration test] or, for that matter, even one additional incentive [that is] not required by [TR § 16-205.1]. This conclusion is, we think, buttressed both by Maryland law and [by] common sense. As to the latter, when it is once determined that a driver must be apprised of additional incentives, there is no rational basis for determining which of those additional incentives must be covered and which are not of sufficient value to merit inclusion in the advice given the arrestee.... [D]ue process does not always require the State affirmatively to inform a [person] of the availability of options that might influence decision-making. It requires no more than that the State not mislead the [person] or construct road[ ]blocks, thus unduly burdening that decision-making....

Having provided the advice [that was] mandated by [TR § 16-205.1], the [law enforcement] officer was not required to anticipate, or guess at, what incentive would have caused the driver to take the [alcohol concentration] test. Nor was ¹⁷⁵ he, as a matter of due process, required to provide any advice other than that [which TR § 16-205.1] prescribed. Indeed, had he undertaken to provide additional information[,] and it turned out to be misleading or inaccurate, that, in itself, may have been a denial of due process. Due process does not require the officer to weigh the relative merits, for encouragement value, of particular consequences flowing from the decision whether to take or refuse a[n alcohol concentration] test.

Id. at 304, 306, 604 A.2d at 918-19 (citations and paragraph break omitted). In Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Chamberlain, 326 Md. 306, 319-20 , 604 A.2d 919, 925 (1992), this Court commented on a driver’s right to due process in the form of being advised of administrative sanctions. In Chamberlain, id. at 309, 604 A.2d at 920, a law enforcement officer arrested the driver for driving while impaired, and read to the driver from the then-current Advice of Rights form. The law enforcement officer requested that the driver consent to take an alcohol concentration test, which the driver refused to take; accordingly, the MVA suspended his driver’s license for 120 days.

See id. at 310-11, 604 A.2d at 920-21. The driver requested an administrative hearing, at which he asserted that he had not been adequately advised of the administrative sanctions for failing or refusing to take an alcohol concentration test. See id. at 311, 604 A.2d at 921. An administrative law judge imposed the same sanction that the MVA did.

See id. at 311, 312, 604 A.2d at 921. The driver petitioned for judicial review, and a trial court reversed the administrative law judge’s decision, concluding that the driver had not been fully advised of administrative sanctions because he had not been informed that a failure of an alcohol concentration test could result in a modification of a suspension or a restrictive license. See id. at 312, 604 A.2d at 922. Although the trial court concluded that the omission of the advisement was a violation of the driver’s right to due process, see id. at 312, 604 A.2d at 922, this Court expressly declined to address the issue as to due process because the ¹⁷⁶ driver did not pursue the issue in this Court, see id. at 308 n. 2, 604 A.2d at 920 n. 2 (“In his brief, not only does [the driver] refrain from making any constitutional arguments ..., but [also,] he conceded at oral argument that he did not raise the constitutional issues in the first instance, the trial court having done so on its own, and, further, that his research did not support the [trial] court’s determinations.

Thus, we conclude that the [driver] no longer wishes to pursue the constitutional issues. We will not, therefore, further consider them.”). In this Court, the driver contended that TR § 16-205.1 required a law enforcement officer to inform drivers that, unlike a refusal to take an alcohol concentration test, a failure of an alcohol concentration test could result in a modification of a suspension or a restrictive