254 A.3d 524
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2021Background
- Trooper Brown stopped Dejarnette after observing unsafe lane changes and smelling alcohol; field sobriety tests led to arrest at 2:12 a.m.
- Dejarnette was transported to the barracks; after processing and being read the DR-15 form, he agreed to a chemical breath test; samples taken at 2:43 and 2:47 a.m. registered .094% BAC.
- Dejarnette moved in limine to exclude the breath-test results for alleged noncompliance with COMAR 10.35.02.08(G)’s 20‑minute observation requirement.
- The circuit court found the officers observed Dejarnette for the requisite period, admitted the breath results as evidence, and submitted any compliance dispute to the jury as a weight issue.
- A Somerset County jury convicted Dejarnette of driving under the influence per se and driving while impaired; he appealed, challenging admissibility based on statutory and regulatory compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Dejarnette's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10‑309 requires strict compliance with COMAR 10.35.02.08(G) (20‑minute observation) as a condition of admissibility | § 10‑309 (an exclusionary statute) requires compliance with the COMAR observation regulation for admissibility | § 10‑309 requires only compliance with the subtitle’s statutory requirements; COMAR noncompliance affects weight, not admissibility | § 10‑309’s plain language does not incorporate COMAR; regulatory violations do not trigger exclusion under the statute |
| Whether the officers’ conduct satisfied the COMAR observation requirement | The record lacks proof of adequate observation for 20 minutes; result should be excluded | Record shows continuous supervision and no indicia of eating/drinking/putting anything in mouth; officers complied | Trial record supports a factual finding that officers complied with the observation requirement |
| Whether ‘‘observe’’ requires continuous, unbroken visual stare for the entire observation period | ‘‘Observe’’ means continuous fixed visual attention for 20 minutes | Observation may be satisfied by being in the person’s presence and using multiple senses; fixed stare is unreasonable | Observation need not be an unbroken visual stare; officers may use multiple senses and remain in proximity |
| Whether alleged COMAR noncompliance renders breath-test results inadmissible or simply affects weight | Noncompliance mandates exclusion of the test results | Noncompliance goes to weight; admissibility remains unless defendant proves substantial unreliability | COMAR compliance goes to evidentiary weight; exclusion is required only where reliability is sufficiently compromised |
Key Cases Cited
- McFarlin v. State, 409 Md. 391 (2009) (violation of a state regulation does not trigger the exclusionary rule)
- Johnson v. State, 467 Md. 362 (2020) (statutory interpretation principles and de novo review)
- Opert v. Criminal Injuries, 403 Md. 587 (2008) (plain‑meaning rule governs statutory interpretation)
- Md. Overpak Corp. v. Mayor and City Council of Balt., 395 Md. 16 (2006) (presumption that legislature means what it says)
- Krauss v. State, 322 Md. 376 (1999) (discussion of regulations issued under statutory authority)
- Casper v. State, 70 Md. App. 576 (1987) (standards for admissibility of chemical breath tests and defendant’s right to challenge reliability)
- Reed v. Hill, 770 S.E.2d 501 (W. Va. 2015) (observation requirement does not mandate fixed visual stare)
- People v. Chiaravalle, 23 N.E.3d 633 (Ill. App. 2014) (continuous unbroken visual observation is impractical and not required)
- State v. Scheffert, 778 N.W.2d 733 (Nev. 2010) (officer must remain in presence and be positioned to detect conduct that could taint the sample)
- State v. Relyea, 288 P.3d 278 (Utah App. 2012) (15‑minute observation rule adopted in that jurisdiction)