Brackett v. ThomasÂ, 252 N.C. App. 428

Petitioner Wayne T. Brackett, Jr. was arrested 13 Aug 2015 for driving while impaired and the DMV issued a notice suspending his license for an implied‑consent refusal.
Petitioner requested an administrative hearing (7 Jan 2016); the DMV hearing officer upheld the revocation based on a finding Brackett willfully refused chemical analysis.
Brackett petitioned superior court for review; the superior court reversed, concluding the record did not support a finding of willful refusal.
The factual dispute centers on DMV analyst Officer Brent Kinney’s testimony that Brackett failed to follow breath test instructions versus the Intoximeter registering a “mouth alcohol” reading on Brackett’s second attempt.
The Intoximeter reading of "mouth alcohol" ordinarily requires a subsequent test after a 15‑minute observation period; no such follow‑up test was administered.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the record de novo under the statutory standard for DMV revocation appeals and affirmed the superior court’s reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Brackett)	Defendant's Argument (Thomas/DMV)	Held
Whether there was substantial evidence Brackett willfully refused chemical analysis	Brackett argues the machine registered "mouth alcohol," he attempted to blow as instructed, and no follow‑up test (15‑minute observation) was done — so there is no support for a finding of willful refusal	DMV argues Officer Kinney’s testimony that Brackett failed to follow instructions (short/insufficient blows) is competent evidence supporting a willful refusal finding	Held: Reversal affirmed — the record does not support willful refusal because the Intoximeter registered a sample (mouth alcohol) and DMV presented no evidence that a mouth alcohol reading is consistent with an inadequate blow; required follow‑up test was not performed.
Whether there were reasonable grounds (probable cause) to charge an implied‑consent offense	Brackett conceded he was charged and challenges the refusal finding rather than probable cause	DMV points to officer observations (driving behavior, odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, slurred speech, failed field tests) as establishing probable cause	Held: DMV had reasonable grounds/probable cause to charge impaired driving; that element was satisfied and uncontested.

Johnson v. Robertson, 227 N.C. App. 281 (discussing appellate review of superior court review of administrative decisions)
ACT–UP Triangle v. Comm’n for Health Servs., 345 N.C. 699 (standards for appellate review of agency actions)
Dorsey v. UNC–Wilmington, 122 N.C. App. 58 (standard of review for appeals from agency decisions)
L. Harvey & Son Co. v. Jarman, 76 N.C. App. 191 (presumption of regularity in trial court proceedings)
In re Moore, 306 N.C. 394 (procedural standards cited re: burden on appellant)
Steinkrause v. Tatum, 201 N.C. App. 289 (breath test refusal cases where short, interrupted blowing supported willful refusal)
Capital Outdoor, Inc. v. Guilford Cty. Bd. of Adjust., 355 N.C. 269 (appellate obligation to address dispositive agency issues without remand)
Atkins v. Moye, 277 N.C. 179 (faulty driving plus signs of intoxication can establish prima facie impaired driving)
Tedder v. Hodges, 119 N.C. App. 169 (failure to follow intoxilyzer operator instructions can support willful refusal)