subject: Maryland Baltimore County Driving Influence Alcohol Motor Vehicle Administration Technician Sufficient Evidence Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION vMOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION v. JOE PRITCHARD GADDY
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
June 30, 1994, Filed
Joe Pritchard Gaddy was operating his automobile on April 22, 1993, when he was stopped by Anne Arundel County Police Officer M. Edmonson. After noticing Gaddy's bloodshot eyes, his poor balance, and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, the officer administered several field sobriety tests, which Gaddy failed.
The officer then requested that he submit to a test of his breath for alcohol concentration ("a breathalyzer test"). Gaddy refused. As required by the statute, the officer confiscated Gaddy's driver's license, issued him a temporary, 45-day license and forwarded the appropriate documents -- including the form "DR-15A" 3 -- to the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA). Gaddy objected to the admission of the DR-15A certificate. Citing 16.205.1(f)(7)(ii), he argued that the certificate was not admissible as prima facie evidence that he had refused to take the breathalyzer test because it was not also executed by a "Test Technician or Analyst." The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) overruled the objection. After no other evidence was offered by the MVA or Gaddy, the ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that Gaddy had refused to take the test. The MVA granted a stay of the suspension pending judicial review by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The circuit court reversed the decision of the ALJ, holding that the certification signed by the arresting officer that Gaddy had refused to take the alcohol concentration test was insufficient to be admitted as evidence under 16-205.1(f)(7)(ii). Appellant Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) challenged an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.
Issues:
Whether the certification signed by the arresting officer alone was sufficient to be admitted as evidence under 16-205.1(f)(7)(ii)?
Whether the certificate should be signed by the test technician also, required by the statute?
Discussion:
The Court held that "In light of the clear legislative intent and public policy evident in the drunken driving law, it cannot be assumed that the legislature intended to require signatures of both the police officer and a test technician on a certification of a test refusal. The circuit court's conclusion that such a certification is not valid without the attestation of a trained technician who performed no tests and, in all likelihood, never saw the driver, strains common sense. After a driver has refused to submit to a test for alcohol concentration, the signature of a test technician whose services are not employed would be superfluous. Moreover, except for the presence of the conjunctive "and" in the above-quoted statute, nothing in the scheme indicates that a test technician need be present when an officer stops a driver, when the officer requests the driver to take an alcohol concentration test, or when a driver refuses a test. To the contrary, subsection (b) repeatedly refers to the officer alone. The circuit court's interpretation of the statute is contrary to the legislative intent. We hold, therefore, that in the caseof a driver's refusal to take a test for alcohol concentration, 16-205.1(f)(7)(ii) provides that the sworn statement of the police officer shall be prima facie evidence of such test refusal. A second signature of a test technician is not required by the statute."
Conclusion:
The court reversed the judgment for the driver and remanded for entry of an order affirming the MVA's order suspending the driver's license.
Disclaimer:
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
Maryland Baltimore County Driving Influence Alcohol Motor Vehicle Administration Technician Sufficient Evidence Lawyers Attorneys
