subject: Maryland DUI Breathalyzer Alcohol Baltimore County Suspension Drivers License Motor Vehicle Administatrion MVA Field Sobriety Tests BAC [print this page] Maryland DUI Breathalyzer Alcohol Baltimore County Suspension Drivers License Motor Vehicle Administatrion MVA Field Sobriety Tests BAC
MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION v. ADAM LEIGH SHEA
No. 133, September Term, 2008
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
June 23, 2010, Filed
Adam Leigh Shea, Respondent, was stopped by a police officer who observed him driving while not wearing a seatbelt. During the stop, the officer smelled a moderate odor of alcohol emanating from Respondent's person. The officer conducted field sobriety tests (the results of which are not reflected in the record) and then arrested the Respondent for DUI. At the police station, the officer advised Respondent of his rights and the potential penalties under the Statute, and asked him if he wished to take a breath test to ascertain his BAC. Respondent agreed to the test. The test result disclosed a BAC of 0.18. Pursuant to the Statute, the officer presented Respondent with an order of administrative suspension of his driver's license. Respondent appealed, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, reversed
The Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) challenged the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.
The Court held that "the Circuit Court erred in applying a Fourth Amendment analysis to evidence introduced at an administrative hearing held pursuant to the Statute. Evidence in the record showing that the officer: pulled over Respondent after observing that he was driving while not wearing a seatbelt; detected a moderate odor of alcohol on Respondent's person; administered field sobriety tests; and then placed Respondent under arrest, supplied the required "substantial evidence" to support the ALJ's decision that the police officer had reasonable grounds to request Respondent to take the breathalyzer test."
We have observed more than once that the purpose of the Statute is "to reduce the incidence of drunk driving (DUI) and to protect public safety by encouraging drivers to take alcohol concentration tests; the statute is not meant to protect drivers. In addition, we have held that, given the underlying purpose and plain language of 16-205.1 requiring a detention and not an arrest," the phrase "reasonable grounds," in the Statute equates to "a reasonable articulable suspicion," as that term is understood in Fourth Amendment parlance. Given the low quantum of suspicion necessary for "reasonable grounds," we hold that the administrative record contained substantial evidence to support the ALJ's final decision that Officer Phelps had the requisite reasonable grounds to request Respondent to take the breathalyzer test.
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
