Motor Vehicle Administration v. Deering
438 Md. 611
| Md. | 2014Background
- Maryland law (TR §16-205.1) creates an "implied consent, administrative per se" scheme: drivers are deemed to consent to breath testing when detained on DUI suspicion but may refuse; refusals and high BAC results trigger automatic administrative license suspensions.
- Officer stopped April Deering for traffic violations, arrested for DUI, read the DR-15 form, and transported her ~20 minutes to a State Police barracks for testing.
- Deering said she asked to call an attorney before deciding to take the breath test; the officer did not permit a pre-test call ( Fruitland practice is not to permit calls before testing due to the two‑hour testing window).
- Deering submitted to testing; result 0.16 BAC. MVA issued a 90‑day suspension; she requested an administrative hearing and argued denial of pre‑test counsel violated due process and warranted "no action."
- ALJ upheld the suspension; the circuit court reversed, relying on Sites v. State (recognizing a qualified pre‑test right to counsel in the criminal context). MVA appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires a pre‑test opportunity to consult counsel that, if denied, prevents administrative suspension | Deering: Sites requires a reasonable pre‑test opportunity to contact counsel; denial violated due process and warrants suppression/no action in administrative proceeding | MVA: Even if Sites creates a pre‑test right for criminal cases, administrative suspensions serve distinct public‑safety purposes; exclusion/no action is not required in MVA hearings | Held: Denial of pre‑test consultation may affect criminal prosecutions but does not prevent administrative suspensions under TR §16‑205.1; ALJ properly upheld suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702 (1984) (recognized a qualified due process right to consult counsel pre‑test in criminal context)
- Motor Vehicle Administration v. Richards, 356 Md. 356 (1999) (refusal to extend exclusionary rule to administrative license suspension proceedings)
- Najafi v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 418 Md. 164 (2011) (indicated, in dicta, that a Sites violation does not require suppression in administrative suspension hearings)
- Nyflot v. Minnesota Comm’r of Public Safety, 474 U.S. 1027 (1985) (U.S. Supreme Court dismissal for want of a substantial federal question regarding a pre‑test counsel claim)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (framework for balancing private interest, governmental interest, and risk of erroneous deprivation in procedural due process analysis)