Melevsky v. Sec'y of State
182 A.3d 731
| Me. | 2018Background
- On Nov. 12, 2016, Melevsky was stopped for defective lights; officer detected odor of alcohol and observed signs of intoxication, arrested him, and took him to jail.
- At the jail, Melevsky unequivocally refused to take a breath (Intoxilyzer) test and, after the officer read a refusal form, said he would only submit to a blood test.
- The trooper arranged for a hospital blood draw but Melevsky expressed equivocation about whether he would actually submit to the blood test (“might, might not”) and declined to sign the implied-consent refusal form.
- The Secretary of State suspended Melevsky’s license for refusal to submit to testing; a Hearing Examiner denied Melevsky’s petition to rescind the suspension, finding he failed to submit to a test.
- The Superior Court vacated the Hearing Examiner’s decision as a matter of law; the Secretary appealed to the Law Court.
- The Law Court reviewed whether Melevsky’s conduct constituted a statutory “fail[ure] to submit to and complete a test” under 29-A M.R.S. § 2521(5) and affirmed the Hearing Examiner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Melevsky “failed to submit to and complete a test” under § 2521(5) | Melevsky: no refusal because officer never actually gave him a real opportunity to submit to a chemical test (blood) | Secretary: Melevsky unequivocally refused the breath test and equivocated about the blood draw, which supports a finding of failure to submit | Court: Held Melevsky’s unequivocal breath-test refusal and equivocation about the blood draw constituted failure to submit; Hearing Examiner’s finding supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether Maine law allows a suspect to refuse one test and demand another | Melevsky: implied-consent protections require opportunity to submit to an available test | Secretary: statute does not permit picking preferred method; refusal of breath may suffice | Court: § 2521 does not empower suspects to pick testing method; refusing breath while not completing blood can be failure to submit |
| Whether equivocation can equal refusal | Melevsky: equivocation is not an affirmative refusal | Secretary: equivocation after opportunity may be treated as refusal | Court: Equivocation about completing the blood draw, combined with clear breath-test refusal, can constitute refusal |
| Whether Birchfield affects civil license-suspension consequence here | Melevsky cited Birchfield’s blood-draw consent language | Secretary: not controlling for this civil suspension after breath-test refusal | Court: Birchfield’s criminal-consent pronouncement not necessary to decide this license-suspension case |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. (2016) (distinguishing criminal-consent rule for warrantless blood draws)
- State v. Chase, 785 A.2d 702 (Me. 2001) (statute imposes duty to submit to testing once probable cause exists)
- State v. Boyd, 156 A.3d 748 (Me. 2017) (implied-consent statute frames a duty to submit, not merely consent)
- State v. Adams, 457 A.2d 416 (Me. 1983) (test results admissible absent affirmative refusal when suspect understands warnings)
- State v. Butler, 667 A.2d 108 (Me. 1995) (Legislature removed suspect’s choice between breath and blood testing)