222 A.3d 177
Md.2019Background
- In the early morning, Trooper Tucker found Pollard asleep in the driver's seat of a parked car on his ex‑girlfriend’s property; keys were in the ignition, engine off. Pollard said he had been asleep and claimed he was "sheltering" in the vehicle.
- Trooper observed bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and a strong odor of alcohol; he asked Pollard to perform field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test; Pollard refused.
- Trooper read the DR‑15 advice form, attempted to contact Pollard’s attorney (no answer), detained Pollard, confiscated his license, and issued an Order of Suspension under Transp. § 16‑205.1 for test refusal.
- At the ALJ hearing the subpoenaed trooper did not appear; the ALJ proceeded, relied on Atkinson (sheltering/actual physical control test) and found Pollard was not in actual physical control, but did not assess whether the officer had reasonable grounds to believe Pollard had been driving or attempting to drive.
- The MVA appealed arguing the ALJ misapplied Atkinson and should have applied Krafft (MVA must prove the officer had reasonable grounds). The Court of Appeals held the ALJ erred, found the trooper had reasonable grounds, and reversed the circuit court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal standard in test‑refusal administrative hearing | ALJ should apply Krafft: MVA must show officer had reasonable grounds to believe the motorist was driving/attempting to drive while under the influence | Pollard: Atkinson sheltering doctrine shows he was not in actual physical control, so §16‑205.1 does not apply | ALJ erred applying Atkinson; Krafft standard controls—ALJ must determine whether officer had reasonable grounds |
| Whether Trooper Tucker had reasonable grounds | Trooper had reasonable grounds based on location (driver's seat, keys in ignition), alcohol signs, refusal to submit to tests, trespassing/refusal to leave | Pollard: facts support a sheltering defense; he was not operating or attempting to operate the vehicle | Court held Trooper Tucker had reasonable grounds to believe Pollard was driving or attempting to drive while under the influence; MVA met its burden; judgment reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Krafft v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 158 A.3d 539 (Md. 2017) (administrative test‑refusal standard: MVA must prove officer had reasonable grounds)
- Atkinson v. State, 627 A.2d 1019 (Md. 1993) (criminal DUI sheltering/"actual physical control" factors)
- Carpenter v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 36 A.3d 439 (Md. 2012) (officer may reasonably infer driving from circumstantial facts)
- Shea v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 997 A.2d 768 (Md. 2010) (reasonable suspicion is a common‑sense, totality‑of‑circumstances inquiry)
- Shepard v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 923 A.2d 100 (Md. 2007) ("reasonable grounds" is reasonable articulable suspicion, lower than probable cause)